UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 12, 2020

15106615 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/106,615 06/20/2016 Shu Liu 72759US02 (U420810US2) 3064 135291 7590 08/12/2020 Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney 20 Church Street 22 Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER HASAN, SABBIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/12/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SHU LIU, ROBERT RUSSELL MAYER, PAUL W. PALMER, PETER BALAWAJDER, IGOR S. GARCIA, DAVID C. PIMENTA, STEPHANIE ERNST, FERNANDO K. GRANT, ERIC BAKER, and ANDREW S. MILLER Appeal 2020-001276 Application 15/106,615 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–6.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 2 and 16–18 have been cancelled. See Amendment filed Feb. 28, 2019. Claims 7–15, 19, and 20 have been withdrawn pursuant to a Appeal 2020-001276 Application 15/106,615 2 BACKGROUND The disclosure in the Specification “generally relates to gas turbine engines, and more particularly to core cases for gas turbine engines.” Spec. ¶ 1. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and recites: 1. A gas turbine engine disposed along a longitudinal engine axis, the gas turbine engine comprising: a fan assembly; and a core assembly coupled to the fan assembly, the core assembly including: a compressor section; a turbine section; and a core case surrounding the compressor section and the turbine section, the core case defining a containment section surrounding at least one of the compressor section and the turbine section, the containment section including a first containment layer and a second containment layer, wherein the first containment layer is spaced from the second containment layer to define a containment gap having a gap thickness in a radial direction with respect to the longitudinal engine axis (A) to produce a non-linear restriction requirement. See Appeal Br. 8–14. Insofar as Appellant raises arguments challenging the propriety of the Examiner’s restriction requirement, such arguments relate to petitionable subject matter under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is not before us on appeal, as we lack jurisdiction over such petitionable matters. See, e.g., MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board.”); see also MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be decided by the Director on petition....”). Appeal 2020-001276 Application 15/106,615 3 rate of energy dissipation across the first and second containment layers. Appeal Br. 16. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by McMillan.3 DISCUSSION Indefiniteness With respect to claim 5, the Examiner finds that the limitation “‘the first containment layer is supported independent of the second containment layer’ is unclear as to the structural arrangement of the first and second containment layers.” Final Act. 2. Appellant attempted to amend this claim, but the amendment was not entered. See Ans. 3. Appellant does not respond to the merits of the rejection and only asserts that the amendment should have been entered. See Reply Br. 2. However, whether an amendment should have been entered is a petitionable matter that is not before us on appeal. See note 2 supra. Further, we agree with the Examiner that that it is not precisely clear from the claim language what the structural arrangement is between the first and second containment layers, and thus, we sustain this rejection. Anticipation With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that McMillan discloses a gas turbine engine as claimed, including a core case with a first containment 3 McMillan, US 9,097,139 B2, iss. Aug. 4, 2015. Appeal 2020-001276 Application 15/106,615 4 layer (4 or 14) and a second containment layer (8) that are spaced apartment such that a gap between the layers is present. Final Act. 3–4 (citing McMillan Fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 5–11; col. 3, l. 40–col. 4, l. 40; col. 7, ll. 39–42). Further, the Examiner finds that these layers in McMillan have different material properties and structural configurations such that there would be a non-linear rate of energy dissipation across these layers. Id. at 4. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to this claim. See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–5. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues only that “[t]here is no suggestion in McMillan of ‘a containment gap having a gap thickness in a radial direction with respect to the longitudinal engine axis (A) to produce a non-linear rate of energy dissipation across the first and second containment layers.’” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant does not provide further support for this argument. See id. However, in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that there is “[n]o gap provided between [McMillan’s] item 8 and item 20 (posts).” Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Although Appellant points to a structure in McMillan that spans the gap between layers 4 and 8, Appellant does not explain adequately how this shows that McMillan does not anticipate the claim. For example, the plain language of the claim does not require that the gap between the layers is continuous, i.e., the claim language does not preclude the layers from being connected at certain points as disclosed in McMillan. We note that there is some indication on the record that Appellant appears to agree with this interpretation of the claim because Appellant has attempted to amend claim 5 to specifically require that the layers do not contact each other. See Appeal Br. 16 (reciting claim 5 Appeal 2020-001276 Application 15/106,615 5 according to the un-entered amendment thereof). Such an amendment indicates that claim 1 is broader than claim 5, and thus, allows for the layers to be connected in some manner. Further, Appellant indicates that, because layers 4 and 8 of McMillan are connected via posts 20, McMillan does not disclose a non-linear rate of energy dissipation as required by the claim. Yet, the Examiner explains that the energy dissipation would be non-linear based on the gap and the structural properties of the layers. Appellant does not explain adequately why the Examiner’s finding in this regard is erroneous. Further, the recitation in claim 1 of, “to produce a non-linear rate of energy dissipation across the first and second containment layers,” is functional language. As functional language, we are required only to give the involved functional language weight to the extent that the prior art is or is not capable of meeting the limitation. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant offers no evidence that the existence of the posts 20 in McMillan makes the gap between layers 4 and 8 incapable of performing the recited function. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 3 and 4 The Examiner finds that McMillan discloses the limitations recited in claims 3 and 4. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues only that McMillan does not disclose such limitations. Reply Br. 4–5. We agree with the Examiner’s findings, and without further explanation, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s general argument that McMillan does not disclose these limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4. Appeal 2020-001276 Application 15/106,615 6 Claim 5 The Examiner finds that McMillan discloses a first containment layer that is supported independent of the second containment layer, as required by claim 5. Final Act. 5. We agree with the Examiner’s finding, and we note that Appellant only raises arguments with respect to the limitation recited in the proposed amendment of claim 5, which has not been entered. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claim 5. Claim 6 With respect to claim 6, the Examiner finds that McMillan includes bumpers 20 that are disposed between the first and second layers to maintain the thickness of the containment gap. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues only that posts 20 are not bumpers. Appeal Br. 7–8; see also Reply Br. 5. Without further explanation as to why element 20 cannot be considered a bumper as claimed, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding with respect to this claim. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claim 6. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1 and 3–6. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 5 112(b) Indefniteness 5 1, 3–6 102(a)(1) McMillan 1, 3–6 Overall Outcome 1, 3–6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a)(l)(iv). Appeal 2020-001276 Application 15/106,615 7 AFFIRMED