Ex Parte Cuva

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

13482992 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

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.
13/482,992 05/29/2012 William J. Cuva PA21235A;67097-1828PUS1 7428
54549 7590 02/28/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
FORD, RENE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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 WILLIAM J. CUVA
Appeal 2016-003677
Application 13/482,992
Technology Center 3700
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 and 16—23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
According to Appellant, the invention “relates generally to sealing a
spray bar fuel nozzle with a seal and, more particularly, to retaining the
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003677
Application 13/482,992
seal.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Below,
we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A turbomachine assembly, comprising:
a plurality of fuel spraybars spaced about a turbine exhaust
inner case of the turbomachine;
at least one fuel injector assembly associated with each of
the fuel spraybars, the at least one fuel injector assembly
including fuel nozzle having a fuel delivery conduit; and
a seal member of the at least one fuel injector assembly,
wherein the seal member is biased away from the fuel nozzle in
a direction, and the fuel nozzle is configured to contact the seal
member to limit movement of the seal member in the direction.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 18, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement;
2 In the Final Office Action mailed May 21, 2015 (“Final Action”), the
Examiner rejects claim 1—6 and 16—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. See Final Action 8. Although, in the Answer, the
Examiner states that “[t]he § 112, first paragraph rejection of independent
claim 1 ... is withdrawn,” we understand that, in fact, the Examiner
withdraws the second paragraph rejection. Answer 3. First, the Examiner
did not reject claim 1 under § 112, first paragraph, in the Final Action; the
rejection of claim 1 was based on § 112, second paragraph. Final Action 6—
8. Second, the Examiner’s Answer refers to language of claim 1—“seal
member being biased away from a fuel nozzle in a direction”—which was
only addressed in the § 112, second paragraph, rejection. Compare Final
Action 6—8 with Answer 3. The Examiner’s § 112, first paragraph, rejection
does not address this claim language. Final Action 6—7. Third, our
understanding is consistent with the Examiner’s statement that “the §112
2
Appeal 2016-003677
Application 13/482,992
II. Claims 1—6, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Muldoon (US 2007/0006590 Al, pub. Jan. 11,
2007)* * 3; and
III. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Muldoon.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant does not argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18,
22, and 23, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, is
in error. Appeal Br. 6—7. Rather, Appellant states that “[u]pon reversal of
the remaining rejections in the appeal, [Appellant] is willing to reintroduce
[claim] amendments to address the [Section] 112 issues associated with
these dependent claims[,] if required.” Id. Thus, we summarily sustain the
written description rejection.
Rejection II
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, among other
recitations, “[a] fuel nozzle . . . configured to contact [a] seal member to
limit movement of the seal member in the direction.” Appeal Br., Claims
first paragraph rejections of the same action are maintained.” Answer 3. In
other words, it was the § 112, first paragraph, rejections that were
maintained and the § 112, second paragraph, rejection that was withdrawn.
3 Although the heading on page 8 of the Final Office Action does not
indicate that the Examiner rejects claims 16, 17, 20, 21, and 23 as
anticipated by Muldoon, it is clear from the Examiner’s subsequent
discussion that these claims are so rejected. See Final Action 8, 12—13; see
also Appeal Br. 4 (recognizing the same).
3
Appeal 2016-003677
Application 13/482,992
App. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error
because the Examiner relies on a combination of Muldoon’s block 82 and
retainer 88 to teach the claimed seal member, but “retainer 88 is not a
portion of a seal member.” Id. at 4. More specifically, Appellant argues,
retainer 88 is a retainer, not a seal member.... [Rjetainer 88 has
no sealing fimction[,] and is incorporated into . . . block 82 to
retain [block 82 on nozzle 80], not [to] seal. The broadest
reasonable interpretation of [the claimed] “sealing member”
would not include . . . retainer 88 that is separate from . . .
block 82. Interpreting .. . retainer 88 as a sealing member is not
an interpretation that a person having skill in this art would reach.
Id.; see also Reply Br. 1—3. Based on our review of the record, however,
Appellant does not persuade us of error.
We begin by noting that Appellant does not argue that the Examiner
erroneously finds that Muldoon’s block 82 is a member that provides a seal
relative to nozzle 80. See Final Action 9. Further, we agree with the
Examiner that because, in Muldoon, “retainer 88 keeps . . . nozzle [80] from
slipping out of. . . block 82,” the combination of the block and retainer
“performs a clear sealing function.” Answer 5. Thus, the Examiner
adequately supports the finding that the combination of retainer 88 and
block 82 teaches the claimed seal member. Conversely, Appellant does not
persuade us that the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of Muldoon’s
retainer 88 and block 82 is unreasonably broad, or that the rejection
otherwise is erroneous. See Appeal Br. 4. More specifically, Appellant does
not provide evidence, or a line of technical reasoning, sufficient to persuade
us that the Examiner errs in determining that retainer 88 may form a part of a
seal member.
4
Appeal 2016-003677
Application 13/482,992
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in
error because “[n]o portion of. . . nozzle 80 in Muldoon contacts . . .
block 82 to limit movement of. . . block 82 in the direction in which . . .
block 82 is biased away from . . . fuel nozzle 80.” Id. As set forth above,
however, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Muldoon’s
retainer 88 and block 82 teaches the claimed seal member. Further, the
Examiner’s determinations that “Muldoon teaches that. . . radially extending
tabs [136 of nozzle 80] limit movement of. . . retainer [88], the retainer is a
component of the defined seal member as discussed above[,] and[,] thus[,]
the limitation is met” are supported adequately. Answer 5.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 3, 4, 6, 16, 17, and 23 that depend from claim 1 and which
Appellant does not argue separately.
With respect to claims 2, 5, 20, and 21 that depend from claim 1,
Appellant argues that Muldoon does not teach further recitations of each
claim. Appeal Br. 4—5. However,
[e]ach ground of rejection contested by [Ajppellant must be
argued under a separate heading. . . . When multiple claims
subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or
subgroup by [Ajppellant, the Board may select a single claim
from the group or subgroup [,] and may decide the appeal as to
the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on
the basis of the selected claim alone.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In this case, consistent with Rule 41.37, and in
view of the above discussion, we select independent claim 1 as
representative, and claims 2, 5, 20, and 21 fall with claim 1. Thus, we
5
Appeal 2016-003677
Application 13/482,992
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2, 5, 20,
and 21.
Rejection III
Dependent claim 19 recites that “the seal member is a continuous,
monolithic component.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner’s basis for
the rejection is as follows:
[Notwithstanding that claim 19 is rejected as obvious based on
Muldoon,] Muldoon .. . anticipate^] the claim. Muldoon’s seal
member[,] composed of retainer 88 and block 82[,] is a
continuous, monolithic component under [the] broadest
reasonable interpretation. No special definition is found in
[Appellant’s] [Specification for a continuous, monolithic
component. Therefore, the plain meaning and broadest
reasonable interpretation for continuous and monolithic is taken
from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language: continuous—uninterrupted in time, sequence,
substance, or extent; monolithic—constituting or acting as a
single, often rigid, uniform whole. . . . Appellant has provided
no basis as to why this interpretation is unreasonable. After . . .
being assembled into the form visible in [Muldoon’s]
Fig[ures] 6—7, where . . . retainer 88 is inserted into . . . block 82
as described in Muldoon[’s] paragraph] []22, the block and
retainer act as a single uniform whole and as seen in [Muldoon’s]
Fig[ure] 7, the retainer contacts the block[,] and[,] therefore[,]
the assembly is uninterrupted in extent.
Answer 8. Based on our review of the record, we determine that the
Examiner does not support adequately the finding that the combination of
Muldoon’s retainer 88 and block 82 are continuous and monolithic. For
example, as pointed out by Appellant, “retainer 88 would be an interruption
relative to . . . block 82. . . . [R]etainer 88 and block 82 do not together
provide a structure that is ‘uninterrupted in time sequence, substance, or
extent.’” Reply Br. 3. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19.
6
Appeal 2016-003677
Application 13/482,992
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 22, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 16, 17, 20, 21,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Muldoon.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Muldoon.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7