Ex Parte Costa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

12636388 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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.
12/636,388 12/11/2009 Mark W. Costa PA-0007720-U 1246
11943 7590
0""Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
uspto @ osheagetz. com
shenry @ osheagetz. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK W. COSTA and DARIN S. LUSSIER
Appeal 2014-006320
Application 12/636,388
Technology Center 3700
Before BRANDON J. WARNER, LEE L. STEPINA, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark W. Costa and Darin S. Lussier (“Appellants”)1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—9,
11, and 12, which are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United
Technologies Corp. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-006320
Application 12/636,388
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ disclosed invention “relates to fan casings for aircraft gas
turbine engines.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 7, and 12 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A fan section of a gas turbine engine having an axially
extending centerline, comprising:
a fan assembly having a fan rotor hub centered on and
rotatable about the centerline, and a plurality of fan blades
attached to and extending radially out from the fan rotor hub;
a fan containment case disposed radially outside of and
circumferentially around the fan assembly, wherein the fan
containment case extends axially from a front end to an aft end,
and includes a shell and a flange ring integral with one another,
and wherein the flange ring extends around the circumference
of the case, has a U-shaped cross-sectional geometry, and is
located an axial distance from the aft end, and wherein the
flange ring is arranged axially between the front end and the aft
end; and
a plurality of structural exit guide vanes mechanically
attached to the fan containment case at a position aligned with
the flange ring.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
appeal:
Tomich US 4,534,698 Aug. 13, 1985
Sathianathan US 6,769,864 B2 Aug. 3, 2004
Xie US 2008/0128073 A1 June 5, 2008
2
Appeal 2014-006320
Application 12/636,388
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1,3,4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sathianathan. Non-Final Act. 2-4.
II. Claims 2, 7—9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sathianathan and Tomich. Id. at
5-6.
III. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sathianathan and Xie. Id. at 6—8.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I— Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 as anticipated by Sathianathan
Independent Claim 1
The Examiner found that Sathianathan discloses all of the limitations
as recited in independent claim 1. Final Act. 2-4 (including a reproduction
of Fig. 2 of Sathianathan); see Ans. 2—3. In the Answer, the Examiner
clarifies that the recited fan containment case reads on “the entire fan casing,
from elements 48-50” of Sathianathan. Ans. 2—3 (emphasis added); see id.
at 4—6 (reiterating that Sathianathan’s fan containment case includes “the
entire structure ranging from elements 48-50,” inclusive).
Appellants argue that Sathianathan’s flange ring (including flange 44)
is located “on” an aft end of metal casing 40, rather than being “located an
axial distance” therefrom, such that metal casing 40 does not anticipate the
fan containment case of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 2—3. We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument. Although we appreciate Appellants’
observation that Sathianathan’s flange 44 is located “on” an aft end of metal
3
Appeal 2014-006320
Application 12/636,388
casing 40, the rejection does not rely on just metal casing 40 as being the fan
containment case, as discussed above. Rather, it is Sathianathan’s “entire
fan casing,” extending from and including elements 48 and 50, that meets
the claimed fan containment case.2 See Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 2—3; see also
Sathianathan, Fig. 2.
From a review of Sathianathan’s Figure 2, the “entire fan casing”
extends axially beyond just metal casing 40. In fact, Sathianathan expressly
describes that fan casing 26 collectively includes casing 40, intake
assembly 46, and rear portion 50. See, e.g., Sathianathan, col. 3,11. 9-30.
Thus, the flange ring identified by the Examiner (including flange 44) is
“located an axial distance from” the aft end of the entire fan casing
(including rear portion 50), as recited in the claim. Appellants’ argument to
the contrary does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings, which
are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Sathianathan.
Dependent Claims 3, 4, and 6
With respect to the rejection of these claims, Appellants do not set
forth any additional substantive arguments separate from the argument
discussed supra', instead, Appellants expressly rely on “the reasons set forth
2 The claim does not recite that the flange ring is located an axial
distance from the aft end of any particular portion of the fan containment
case, such as Sathianathan’s central metal casing 40, but instead recites that
the flange ring is located an axial distance from the aft end of the overall fan
containment case itself. See Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.
4
Appeal 2014-006320
Application 12/636,388
above with respect to claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10. Accordingly, for the same
reasons Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection of
claim 1, Appellants also do not apprise us of error in the rejection of these
claims, which we likewise sustain.
Rejection II— Claims 2, 7—9, and 11 as unpatentable over
Sathianathan and Tomich
Dependent Claim 2
With respect to the rejection of this claim, Appellants do not set forth
any additional substantive arguments separate from the argument discussed
supra', instead, Appellants expressly rely on “the reasons set forth above
with respect to claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10. Accordingly, for the same reasons
Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1,
Appellants also do not apprise us of error in the rejection of this claim,
which we likewise sustain.
Independent Claim 7
With respect to the rejection of this claim, Appellants make the same
argument discussed supra within the context of Rejection I—namely, that
Sathianathan’s flange ring (including flange 44) is located “on” an aft end of
metal casing 40, rather than being “located an axial distance” therefrom,
such that Sathianathan’s metal casing 40 does not disclose the fan
containment case of claim 7. Appeal Br. 10—12; Reply Br. 3.
Thus, for the same reasons that Appellants’ argument does not apprise
us of error in Rejection I of claim 1, Appellants also do not apprise us of
error in Rejection II of claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
5
Appeal 2014-006320
Application 12/636,388
claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sathianathan
and Tomich.
Dependent Claims 8, 9, and 11
With respect to the rejection of these claims, Appellants do not set
forth any additional substantive arguments separate from the argument
discussed supra', instead, Appellants expressly rely on “the reasons set forth
above with respect to claim 7.” Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly, for the same
reasons Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection of
claim 7, Appellants also do not apprise us of error in the rejection of these
claims, which we likewise sustain.
Rejection III— Claim 12 as unpatentable over
Sathianathan and Xie
The Examiner found that Sathianathan discloses the structural
limitations recited in independent claim 12, except that “Sathianathan does
not teach that the flange ring is between the first and second guide vane
attachments,” as claimed, “but rather that the flange ring surrounds the first
and second guide vane attachments.” Final Act. 6—7. In other words,
compared with the claimed configuration (where the vane attachments are
outboard of the flanges), Sathianathan discloses the opposite configuration
(where the vane attachments are inboard of the flanges). See Ans. 2—\\ see
also Spec., Fig. 2; Sathianathan, Fig. 2. However, the Examiner also found
that such a configuration as recited is “known in the prior art as evidenced
by Xie.” Final Act. 7 (citing Fig. 2 of Xie).
6
Appeal 2014-006320
Application 12/636,388
The Examiner concluded that, given the teachings of the prior art, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to move Sathianathan’s inboard vane attachments to the claimed
outboard configuration, as “a simple substitution of one known mounting
configuration for another to obtain predictable results.” Id. at 7—8 (citing
MPEP § 2141, Part III (B)). The Examiner also explained that the alteration
in the bolt (vane attachment) location “does not appear to cause any
functional changes in the operation of Sathianathan,” and that “such an
alteration does not appear to produce any new or unexpected results and
would be well within the grasp of an ordinary skilled worker in this field.”
Id.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
modified Sathianathan’s inboard vane attachments to an outboard
configuration, suggesting that doing so would result in a bolt being disposed
“between the flanges 44 and 52,” frustrating the purpose of the flanges and
increasing complexity of the structure. Appeal Br. 13—14. We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument. Initially, it is unclear why the
Examiner’s proposed modification to Sathianathan’s configuration would
somehow result in a bolt being disposed “between” flanges 44 and 52, rather
than simply being disposed outboard of flange 44 (and thus outboard of the
adjacent mating of flanges 44 and 52). Moreover, Appellants do not provide
any factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to refute the
Examiner’s reasoned conclusion of obviousness—namely, Appellants do not
explain why the substitution of an inboard bolt configuration for an outboard
bolt configuration would yield anything other than predictable results or
would result in any functional change in operation. See Ans. 7; see, e.g.,
7
Appeal 2014-006320
Application 12/636,388
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416—18 (2007); In reJapikse,
181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950).
Finally, Appellants assert in the Reply Brief, without providing any
supporting evidence, that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
no[] reasonable expectation that increasing the axial distance between the
bolts of Sathianathan as shown in Xie could properly handle the load
transfer between the guide vane 30 and the flanges 44 of Sathianathan.”
Reply Br. 3^4. Not only is this assertion presented without evidentiary
support, claim 12 recites only a structural arrangement of the flange ring
relative to the vane attachments, rather than any load transfer parameters.
See Appeal Br. 18, Claims App. As stated by our reviewing court in In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), “the name of the game is
the claim.” It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claim
cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982).
In view of the foregoing, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning for the conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sathianathan and Xie.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,3,4, and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sathianathan.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 7—9, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sathianathan and
Tomich.
8
Appeal 2014-006320
Application 12/636,388
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sathianathan and Xie.
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
9