Ex Parte Desfosses et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

13674342 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/674,342 11/12/2012
12208 7590
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
11/30/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian Desfosses
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
64077US01-U73-012989 5912
EXAMINER
WOLCOTT, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN DESFOSSES
and WILLOUGHBY MARSHALL QUIN
Appeal2018-003154
Application 13/674,342
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-003154
Application 13/674,342
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-20. Claim 7 was cancelled during
prosecution. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims are directed "to an intermediate case for use in a
gas turbine engine." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a first compressor;
a second compressor;
an intermediate case (IMC) positioned between the first
compressor and the second compressor, the intermediate case
compnsmg:
a bleed duct formed via sand casting, wherein the
bleed duct comprises:
a front section extending upstream toward the
first compressor in a substantially axial direction
with respect to a centerline axis of the gas turbine
engme;
a trailing edge disposed downstream of the
front section;
a plurality of bleed duct outlets extending
radially outward through the front section of the
bleed duct and positioned axially upstream from the
trailing edge; and
a flange connected to the trailing edge,
wherein the flange extends radially outward beyond
the front section and beyond the plurality of bleed
duct outlets relative a centerline axis of the gas
turbine engine; and
2
Appeal2018-003154
Application 13/674,342
an IMC centerbody formed via investment casting and
fixedly attached to the trailing edge of the bleed duct, wherein
the IMC centerbody extends downstream from the trailing edge
of the bleed duct.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kast
Murphy
Anderson
Melton
Sumser
Veninger
Merry
Urban
us 3,579,805
us 4,844,144
us 4,968,216
us 5,503,490
US 8,997,485 B2
US 2010/0242488 Al
US 2010/0247306 Al
US 2012/0070271 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
May 25, 1971
July 4, 1989
Nov. 6, 1990
Apr. 2, 1996
Apr. 7, 2015
Sept. 30, 2010
Sept. 30, 2010
Mar. 22, 2012
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Merry and Urban. Ans. 2.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Merry, Urban, and Veninger. Id.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Merry, Urban, Melton, and Anderson. Id.
Claims 12-14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Merry, Urban, and Sumser. Id.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Merry, Urban, Sumser, and Murphy. Ans. 3.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Merry, Urban, Sumser, Melton, and Anderson. Id.
3
Appeal2018-003154
Application 13/674,342
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Merry, Urban, Sumser, and Kast. Id.
ANALYSIS
All of the Examiner's rejections rely upon the combination of Merry
and Urban with the Examiner modifying Merry in light of Urban to add a
flange that extends radially outward beyond the plurality of bleed duct
outlets as claimed. See e.g., Final Act. 6-7. Appellants argue that the
Examiner's proposed flange placement "is not connected to the supposed
trailing edge in the [E]xample provided by the Examiner." Br. 9. Although
the claims do not specifically require a direct connection of the flange at the
trailing edge, we nonetheless consider the Examiner's interpretation to be
too broad.
The Examiner's placement of the extending flange is essentially at the
leading edge of the duct, which is at the opposite end of the duct from the
claimed trailing edge. Although Appellants' claims do not necessarily
foreclose the possibility of the claimed connection having intermediate parts,
the numerous intermediate parts and disparate locations that comprise the
Examiner's connection essentially make the "trailing edge" limitation have
no meaning, as any part of a duct could theoretically be connected to another
part through continuous connections between intermediate parts.
Appellants' specific limitation of being connected to the trailing edge must
have some meaning, and we do not consider a part added at the leading edge
to be connected to the trailing edge as required by the claims.
The Examiner also asserts an alternative interpretation whereby the
parts are "fluidly connected" and thus meet the claims. Ans. 5. In general, a
fluid connection refers to the actual fluid path and not the structure that
4
Appeal2018-003154
Application 13/674,342
defines the fluid path. Accordingly, we do not agree that the defining
structure of a duct can be considered connected via the fluid path it defines,
at least in the context of the claim language at issue.
None of the secondary references corrects this defect and so we do not
sustain any of the Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1---6 and 8-20.
REVERSED
5