Dominic J. Mongillo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 6, 2019

14655058 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019)

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.
14/655,058 06/24/2015 Dominic J. MONGILLO 67097-2336PUS2;64151US03 2942
54549 7590 08/06/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOMINIC J. MONGILLO and
TRACY A. PROPHETER-HINCKLEY
____________

Appeal 2018-007011
Application 14/655,058
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
United Technologies Corporation (“Appellant”)1 appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–20,
and 22–25, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 1, 3–9; Final
Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 United Technologies Corporation is the applicant, as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007011
Application 14/655,058

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention “relates to a gas turbine engine, and
more particularly to a gas turbine engine component having a vascular
engineered lattice structure.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 13 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A component, comprising:
a wall;
a vascular engineered lattice structure formed inside of
said wall, with a lattice cavity defined between internal
surfaces of said wall and external surfaces of said vascular
engineered lattice structure; and
said vascular engineered lattice structure including at
least a hollow vascular structure configured to communicate
fluid through said vascular engineered lattice structure, said
hollow vascular structure defined by a first set of nodes and a
first set of branches each extending from at least one of said
first set of nodes, with respective internal passages defined
within each node of said first set of nodes and within each
branch of said first set of branches for communicating fluid,
said internal passages being distinct from said lattice cavity.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Negulescu US 2005/0111980 A1 May 26, 2005
Brassfield US 2008/0080979 A1 Apr. 3, 2008
Mitchell US 2009/0274549 A1 Nov. 5, 2009
Garry US 2010/0011775 A1 Jan. 21, 2010
Lee US 2010/0025001 A1 Feb. 4, 2010
Ader US 2011/0052412 A1 Mar. 3, 2011
Appeal 2018-007011
Application 14/655,058

3
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite. Final Act. 2.
II. Claims 1, 3–13, 18, 19, and 22–25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and
Negulescu. Id. at 2–6.
III. Claims 6, 14–16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Mitchell, Negulescu, and Lee. Id.
at 7.
IV. Claims 14, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mitchell, Negulescu, and Ader. Id.
at 7–8.
V. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mitchell, Negulescu, Lee, Garry, and
Brassfield. Id. at 8–9.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Indefiniteness of Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from claim 22, which depends from independent
claim 1, with these dependent claims reciting further limitations of the first
set of branches and the wall, respectively. The Examiner determines that
claim 23 is indefinite because the recitation of “surfaces,” when base
claim 22 already recites “external surfaces,” makes it unclear whether the
recited “surfaces” are the same or different from those referenced in
claim 22. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-007011
Application 14/655,058

4
Initially, we note that neither claim 22 nor claim 23 recites simply
“surfaces” without further detail—claim 22 constrains the wall to include
first and second portions, where the first wall portion “defines external
surfaces of said component,” and claim 23 constrains at least some branches
of the first set thereof to “extend from surfaces of said lattice cavity.”
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). We further note that Appellant
proposed amending claim 23 to recite instead that at least some branches of
the first set thereof “extend from said internal surfaces of said wall,” but
such proposed amendment was not entered by the Examiner. See Advisory
Act. 1–2; Ans. 6; see also Proposed Amendment dated Dec. 18, 2017
(proposing amendment to claim 23); Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4 (both
reiterating Appellant’s willingness to amend claim 23).
While we applaud and encourage Appellant’s willingness to further
clarify the recitation of claim 23, we do not share the Examiner’s concern
that the present recitation lacks adequate clarity. In our view, the present
recitation of “surfaces of said lattice cavity”2 is sufficiently clear to a person
of ordinary skill in the art—specifically, these surfaces are distinct from the

2 Admittedly, the present recitation of at least some branches of the first
set thereof extending from “surfaces of said lattice cavity,” is somewhat
awkward insofar as the “lattice cavity” itself does not appear to have
“surfaces,” in that the cavity is bounded by surfaces of other elements
(namely, the internal surfaces of the wall and the exterior surfaces of the
vascular engineered lattice structure formed inside the wall per ultimate base
claim 1). In other words, as understood from claim 1, the “surfaces of said
lattice cavity” are either internal surfaces of the wall or exterior surfaces of
the vascular engineered structure (which cooperatively define the lattice
cavity). Thus, clarifying the recitation as proposed—limiting “surfaces of
said lattice cavity” to specifically recite “said internal surfaces of said
wall”—would enhance the precision of the claim.
Appeal 2018-007011
Application 14/655,058

5
first wall portion, which defines “external surfaces of said component” per
base claim 22. Thus, although the present recitation does lack some
precision relative to the language used in ultimate base claims 1 and 22, it is
nevertheless sufficiently clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
We do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claim 23.

Rejections II–V – Obviousness of Claims 1, 3–20, and 22–25
All the claims relate to “a component,” having “a wall,” and include a
vascular engineered structure formed “inside of” the wall of the component,
where a lattice cavity is “defined between internal surfaces of said wall and
external surfaces of said vascular engineered structure.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. In other words, the vascular engineered structure exists within the wall
of the component, and the lattice cavity (empty space) exists between the
outside of the vascular engineered structure and the inside of the wall of the
component. See id.
In rejecting the claims, for Rejections II–V, the Examiner relies on a
combination of incorporating a vascular engineered lattice structure that
exists within the component of Mitchell (a turbine blade) into the component
of Negulescu (a section of a turbine having a wall). Final Act. 2–4.
According to the Examiner, “[w]hen this is done, the ‘external surfaces’ of
Mitchell’s blade, which are also the ‘external surfaces’ of the vascular
engineered lattice structure, will be surrounded by the lattice cavity (hot gas
path)” of Negulescu. Id. at 4; see also Ans. 3 (including an annotated
reproduction of Negulescu’s figure).
However, we agree with Appellant that the rejections rely on “an
unduly broad interpretation of the claimed features,” essentially casting
Appeal 2018-007011
Application 14/655,058

6
aside any logical interpretation of the “internal surfaces” of the wall of the
component versus the “external surfaces” of the vascular engineered
structure that exists within the wall of the component. Appeal Br. 3; see id.
at 3–7. In this way, the Examiner’s stated combination of Mitchell and
Negulescu results in the vascular engineered lattice structure of Mitchell
being disposed within the hot gas path of Negulescu—but this area is outside
(external to) any component of Negulescu. As shown in the Examiner’s
annotated reproduction of Negulescu’s figure (Ans. 3), the Examiner’s
identified “internal surfaces of wall” are actually external surfaces of the
blade component (although it may be supposed that these surfaces could be
considered “internal surfaces” of some larger assembly, such an assembly
would not logically be considered “a component,” as used in the present
application).
In short, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in applying
an unreasonably broad claim construction. Because of this erroneous claim
construction, the Examiner has not established factual findings, or provided
adequate explanatory analysis, as to how the stated combination of Mitchell
and Negulescu relied upon would render obvious the structural arrangement
of the claims.
We note that the Examiner’s findings from Mitchell appear to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Final Act. 2–4; Mitchell,
Figs. 2, 3a, 3b. In particular, with respect to claim 1, for example, the only
claim limitation lacking express disclosure in Mitchell appears to be the
component (blade 32) including a lattice cavity defined between internal
surfaces of the wall (blade wall 30) and external surfaces of the vascular
engineered lattice structure (branched network 34). See, e.g., Mitchell,
Appeal 2018-007011
Application 14/655,058

7
Figs. 2, 3a, 3b. On the record before us, however, particularly in the absence
of relevant findings from the Examiner, we decline to speculate as to the
possible construction or content of the areas within Mitchell’s blade wall
exclusive of the vascular engineered lattice structure.
Nevertheless, despite the noted similarities between Mitchell and the
present invention, we constrain our appellate review to the rejection before
us. In this regard, based on the error in claim construction that pervades all
the prior art rejections, we do not sustain them.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–13, 18,
19, and 22–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell
and Negulescu.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 14–16,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell,
Negulescu, and Lee.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14, 15, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell, Negulescu,
and Ader.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell, Negulescu, Lee, Garry,
and Brassfield.
REVERSED