Ex Parte Benkler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13132126 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
13/132,126 06/01/2011 Francois Benkler 2007P22596WOUS 3056
22116 7590 03/02/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
SEHN, MICHAEL L
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANCOIS BENKLER, KARL KLEIN, TORSTEN MATTHIAS,
ACHIM SCHIRRMACHER, OLIVER SCHNEIDER,
and VADIM SHEVCHENKO
Appeal 2015-003130
Application 13/132,126
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Francois Benkler et al. (Appellants)1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s Non-Final Action2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 9, 12, and 16 as unpatentable over Kreis (US 6,726,391 Bl, iss. Apr.
27, 2004), Matheny ’041 (US 6,514,041 Bl, iss. Feb. 4, 2003), Matheny
’426 (US 7,445,426 Bl, iss. Nov. 4, 2008), and Westrum (US 3,661,477, iss.
May 9, 1972); of claim 13 as unpatentable over Kreis, Matheny ’041,
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner set forth in the
Non-Final Action (mailed May 22, 2014, “Non—Final Act.”).
Appeal 2015-003130
Application 13/132,126
Matheny ’426, Westrum, and Burge (US 5,180,281, iss. Jan. 19, 1993); and
of claims 14 and 15 as unpatentable over Kreis, Matheny ’041, Matheny
’426, Westrum, and Suzumura (US 6,932,566 B2, iss. Aug. 23, 2005).3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 9, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below and
illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations emphasized.
9. An axial compressor for a gas turbine, comprising:
a guide vane ring fastened to a guide vane carrier;
a plurality of guide vanes;
a wall portion; and
a heat insulation,
wherein vane tips of the plurality of guide vanes lie on a
hub side,
wherein the vane tips are opposite the wall portion and in
between the vane tips and wall portion a radial gap is formed,
wherein the wall portion reacts thermally more quickly in
relation to the guide vane carrier,
wherein a wall cover of the wall portion is configured as a
rotationally fixed shaft cover,
wherein heat insulation is provided on the wall portion and
delays a heat introduction upon the wall portion and upon the
guide vane carrier in such a way that the thermally induced
expansion behavior of the guide vane carrier and the wall portion
is substantially equalized over time during a transient operation
of the axial compressor,
wherein the plurality of guide vanes form at least two
guide vane rings which lie next to one another and the radial gaps
of which are controlled by the heat insulation,
3 Claims 1—8, 10, 11, and 17 have been canceled. See Amendment dated
April 24, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-003130
Application 13/132,126
wherein the heat insulation is designed in the form of a
segmented ring using a plurality of circumferential segments,
and
wherein the heat insulation includes a plurality of sealing
elements which are provided between the plurality of
circumferential segments.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 9, 12, and 16 over Kreis, Matheny ’041,
Matheny ’426, and Westrum; of Claim 13 over Kreis, Matheny ’041,
Matheny ’426, Westrum, and Burge; and of Claims 14 and 15 over Kreis,
Matheny ’041, Matheny ’426, Westrum, and Suzumura
Appellants argue claims 9 and 12—16 as if all the claims were rejected
as obvious over Kreis, Matheny ’041, Matheny ’426, and Westrum, alone.
See Appeal Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2—3. We select claim 9 as the representative
claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 9.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
In determining claim 9 to be unpatentable over Kreis, Matheny ’041,
Matheny ’426, and Westrum, the Examiner relies on Kreis for teaching,
inter alia, an axial compressor for a gas turbine including
[a] wall cover of the wall portion [that] is configured as a
rotationally fixed shaft cover, and heat insulation (110-140)
[that] is provided on the wall cover and delays a heat introduction
upon the wall portion and upon the guide vane carrier in such a
way that the thermally induced expansion behavior of the guide
vane carrier (2) and the wall portion is substantially equalized
over time during transient operation of the axial compressor.
Non-Final Act. 3^4 (citing Kreis, Fig. 1, col. 3,11. 15—20; 30-33).
In addition, the Examiner looks to Westrum for teaching “a heat
shield (Figure 2) for a gas turbine engine, wherein the heat shield is designed
in the form of a segmented ring using a plurality of circumferential segments
3
Appeal 2015-003130
Application 13/132,126
(13).” Id. at 5 (citing Westrum, col. 2,11. 62—63). Based on the foregoing,
the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to make the heat
insulation of Kreis in the form of a segmented ring using a plurality of
circumferential segments ... as taught by Westrum, for the purpose of
allowing the segments to move independently,” so that “each segment can
accommodate heat expansion without subjecting the other segments to
stresses of the same magnitude.” Id.
In taking issue with the analysis and conclusions presented in the
Non-Final Action, Appellants contend that “thermal insulation is generally
defined to one skilled in the art as the reduction of heat transfer between
objects in thermal contact,” so that the heat insulation recited by claim 9,
“reduces and delays the introduction of heat upon the wall portion,” which
“is in contrast to Kreis’s heat-protection shields (110-140),” reasoning that
Kreis’s “heat shields are generally defined to one skilled in the art to shield
an object against absorbing excessive heat from an outside source where the
word shield means to block or protect.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellants also
contend that “one skilled in the art would know that a heat shield is
fundamentally different in both function and structure than heat insulation.”
Id. at 6; Reply Br. 3.
After explaining that “the heat insulation claimed lacks structure
regarding its delaying a heat introduction upon the wall portion,” and that
“[ojnly the functional limitation of delaying a heat introduction upon the
wall portion and upon the guide vane carrier is disclosed,” the Examiner
concludes that “[sjince the claimed heat insulation lacks structure, [(1)] it is
not structurally distinguishable from the prior art heat shield of Kreis,” and
(2) it “does not disclose any structural limitations that are not also disclosed
4
Appeal 2015-003130
Application 13/132,126
by the heat shields of Matheny '041 and Westrum.” Ans. 6. We agree with
the Examiner. Appellants have failed to provide us with a construction of
the term “heat insulation” that necessarily excludes a heat shield, and have
failed to provide a persuasive technical explanation regarding the difference
between heat insulation and a heat shield.
Appellants also contend that because claim 9 recites radial gaps
“controlled by the heat insulation,” and Appellants’ desire “to have a radial
gap (10) between vane tip (14) and the wall portion (4) as small as possible
while still ensuring that the vane tips do not butt against the wall portion or
shaft cover (4),” claim 9 is alleged to distinguish from “Westrum [that] does
not teach or suggest using the heat shield segments 13 to control the width of
radial gaps.” Appeal Br. 6—7. However, Appellants’ contention is
unavailing as it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 9, which does
not recite any limitation about the width of the radial gaps between the vane
tips and the wall portion. Appeal Br. 9, Claims App.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 9, 12, and 16 over Kreis, Matheny ’041, Matheny ’426,
and Westrum; of claim 13 over Kreis, Matheny ’041, Matheny ’426,
Westrum, and Burge; and of claims 14 and 15 over Kreis, Matheny ’041,
Matheny ’426, Westrum, and Suzumura.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections.
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).
AFFIRMED
5