12079048 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016)

Ex Parte Alvanos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 2016

12079048 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/079,048 03/24/2008 12208 7590 Kinney&Lange,P.A. 312 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 05/11/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ioannis Alvanas 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PA-0006802U-U73. 12-299KL CONFIRMATION NO. 8281 EXAMINER LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RY AN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/11/2016 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): amkoenck@kinney.com USPatDocket@kinney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IO ANNIS AL VANOS and HECTOR M. PINERO Appeal2014-001119 Application 12/079,048 1 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL W. KIM, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. Final Action 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-001119 Application 12/079,048 ILL US TRATIVE CLAiivI 1. A stator vane segment for a gas turbine engine compnsmg: at least one airfoil joined to an outer shroud and an inner platform; and a sealing element integrally joined to the inner platform, the sealing element having a first platform radially inward from the inner platform and an abradable material covering at least a portion of the first platform, and wherein the sealing element contains a fluid flowpath that prevents the escape of a fluid radially inward of the inner platform. REJECTION I. Claims 1-10, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art in view of Cunha et al. (US 5,320,483, iss. June 14, 1994) (hereinafter "Cunha"). II. Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art in view of Cunha, Alvanos et al. (US 2007 /0059158 Al, pub. tvfar. 15, 2007) (hereinafter "Alvanos"), and Lu et al. (US 2005/0089394 Al, pub. Apr. 28, 2005) (hereinafter "Lu"). III. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art in view of Cunha, and in further view of a design choice. FINDINGS OF FACT We rely upon and adopt the Examiner's findings stated in the Final Action and the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. 2 Appeal2014-001119 Application 12/079,048 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue all three independent claims (claims 1, 11, and 15) together as a group. Appeal Br. 4---6. Claim 1 is selected for discussion herein. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Appellants contend that the combined teachings of the Admitted Prior Art (shown in Figure 4 and in paragraph 23 of the Appellants' Specification) and Cunha do not show the following feature of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7, Claims App.): "the sealing element contains ajluidflowpath that prevents the escape of a fluid radially inward of the inner platform." Appeal Br. 4. According to the Appellants, the Admitted Prior Art and Cunha may not be combined to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 because Cunha, which discloses apertures that permit the passage of a fluid from cavity 72 formed within diaphragm 32 (see Cunha, Fig. 1, col. 6, 11. 18-24), "teaches away from the claim limitation of preventing the escape of a fluid radially inward of the platform" (Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner responds by explaining that the Admitted Prior Art discloses the claimed "fluid flowpath" (pocket 88 shown in Figure 4 of the Specification), including its capability of preventing the escape of fluid. Answer 15. The Examiner admits the Admitted Prior Art did not explicitly indicate that a fluid is located therein. Id. The Examiner then cites Cunha, however, purely for evidence that it was known to one of ordinary skill in the art for fluid to reside within a sealing element of a turbine engine stator vane - not for any of the other features (such as preventing the escape of fluid) already taught by the Admitted Prior Art. Id. at 15-16. 3 Appeal2014-001119 Application 12/079,048 Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the disclosure of an alternative approach, in Cunha, negates the undisputed teaching of the relevant claimed features in the Admitted Prior Art, that a cavity without apertures can hold and prevent the escape of fluid, as claimed. "[M]ere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away," where "such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" the technique of the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, there is no suggestion that Cunha discourages the approach taken in the Admitted Prior Art that "prevents the escape of a fluid radially inward of the inner platform," per claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7, Claims App.); thus, we are unpersuaded that Cunha teaches away from the claimed invention. For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Because the Appellants rely upon the same arguments just addressed, in regard to the other independent claims (claims 11 and 15) and the dependent claims, the rejection of claims 2-20 is also sustained. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 4