Ex Parte Dierberger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12286705 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/286,705 10/01/2008
135291 7590 09/30/2016
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James A. Dierberger
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.
52864US01 (U420419US) 5894
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, WILLIAM H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES A. DIERBERGER
Appeal2013-008290
Application 12/286,705
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James A. Dierberger ("Appellant")1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-16, which are all the
pending claims. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Pratt & Whitney, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2013-008290
Application 12/286,705
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention "generally relates to cooled structures,
and more specifically to structures with adaptive cooling for use in hot
environments such as found in gas turbine engines." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1
and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A structure with adaptive cooling comprising:
a mounting support having a coolant aperture for
directing cooling air through said support; and
a liner mounted to said support, said liner including a
wall having a hot surface facing away from said support and a
cold surface facing toward said support, said liner having:
an average temperature position, wherein said
liner wall cold surface contacts said mounting support,
said liner wall cold surface defining a channel
sufficiently proximate said coolant aperture to permit a
convective flow of cooling air from said coolant
aperture; and
a hot temperature position induced by a hot spot
location on said liner wall hot surface, wherein said liner
wall deflects away from said mounting support to form a
chamber between said liner wall cold surface and said
mounting support, said chamber having an offset distance
from the coolant aperture to the liner wall cold surface
sufficient to permit said cooling air to impinge on the
cold surface of said liner wall.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Bhangu
Auxier
us 4,064,300
us 5,131,222
2
Dec. 20, 1977
July21, 1992
Appeal2013-008290
Application 12/286,705
Ward
Kendall
Burd
Dahlke2
us 5,209,059
US 2004/0083734 Al
US 2007 /0144178 Al
WO 2005/019730 Al
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
May 11, 1993
May 6, 2004
June 28, 2007
Mar. 3, 2005
I. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Auxier.
II. Claims 1, 3, and 6-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ward and Auxier.
III. Claims 4 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ward, Auxier, and Kendall.
IV. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ward, Auxier, and Bhangu.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a mounting support and a
liner mounted thereto, where the liner has a cold surface facing toward the
support, and the liner further has multiple positions, including both (1) "an
average temperature position," where the cold surface "contacts said
mounting support," with the cold surface "defining a channel" to permit a
flow of cooling air therethrough, and (2) "a hot temperature position," where
2 We note that the Examiner also identifies US 7,849,694 B2, issued
December 14, 2010, as an English-language translation of Dahlke, but we
understand the Examiner's evidentiary reliance to be based on Dahlke due to
an earlier reference date. See Final Act. 12; Ans. 6.
3
Appeal2013-008290
Application 12/286,705
the liner "deflects away" from the support to "form a chamber between" the
cold surface and the support. Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added).
Independent claim 11 recites a method of cooling a liner mounted to a
support that has substantially similar limitations, including providing a liner
with the cold surface "defining a channel" and disposing the liner in both
"an average temperature position" and "a hot temperature position." See id.
(emphasis added).
The dispositive issue raised in this appeal centers on the proper claim
interpretation of the "channel" defined in the cold surface, as recited in both
independent claims. Appellant argues that Auxier, as relied on in
Rejections I-IV for disclosing this feature, does not include such a
"channel," as recited in the claims, when this claim term is properly
interpreted. See Appeal Br. 11-15, 18-21. For the reasons below, we agree
that the Examiner's broad interpretation of a "channel" defined in the cold
surface, and thus the corresponding reliance on Auxier, is unreasonable.
During patent examination, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, with claim
language being read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353,
1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (although an examiner must give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one
that one of ordinary skill in the art would reach). Thus, in the absence of
any special definition in the specification, claim terms are to be given their
plain meaning-that is the ordinary and customary meaning for a person of
ordinary skill in the art-unless the plain meaning would be inconsistent
4
Appeal2013-008290
Application 12/286,705
with the specification. See Jn re Zietz, 893, F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
see also MPEP § 2111.01. Here, a plain meaning of "channel" is a usually
tubular "enclosed passage," or a "long gutter, groove, or furrow," both of
which are consistent with the use of this term within Appellant's
Specification. See Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.
2003); see also Spec. i-f 16; Figs. 1, 2.
Of particular relevance here, further guidance is provided by reading
the disputed term within the full context of the claim language. The claimed
"channel" is recited, not simply in the abstract, but rather in the context of
where the cold surface of the liner wall "defin[ es] a channel" therein. See
Appeal Br., Claims App. In other words, the recited "channel" includes the
structure that forms such a passage/ groove, and this structure must be
defined within the cold surface of the liner wall. See id. This interpretation
is further bolstered by the claim recitation that the cold surface "contacts"
the mounting support. 3 See id.; see also Figs. 1, 2; Appeal Br. 11-13.
Moreover, the claim recites that a gap/space "between" the cold surface and
the support (the claimed "chamber" formed between the surfaces) is only
created (formed) upon deflection of the cold surface away from the
3 Logically, this would not be "continuous" contact, as Appellant
erroneously alleges (see Appeal Br. 12), but would be contact between the
lowermost cold surface, from which the channel is defined and extends
upward (thereby excluding the channel's "base" from such contact), and a
corresponding surface of the mounting support. One of ordinary skill in the
art would readily appreciate that, in the absence of the recited channel being
defined within the cold surface, there would be no gap/space between the
cold surface and the mounting support, due to this recited contact between
the surfaces.
5
Appeal2013-008290
Application 12/286,705
mounting support. See Appeal Br., Claims App.; see also Spec. if 17;
Figs. 1-3.
The Examiner's broader interpretation---essentially equating the
claimed "channel" with any gap/space between two surfaces---does not
properly account for the requirement within the claim language that it is the
cold surface that is "defining" the channel therein. See Final Act. 3;
Ans. 3--4; see also Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions that render phrases in
claims superfluous). Although the Examiner correctly finds that Auxier
discloses gap 17 between first curved plate 5 and second curved plate 7,
through which coolant flows, this gap/space does not include structure
"defined" within any surface-instead, it is simply a gap/space "between"
elements. See Auxier, Fig. 1; col. 2, 11. 4--20 (explaining that gap 1 7
expands into enhanced gap 26, shown by dotted lines 24 and 25, as
temperatures rise).
In brief, Appellant persuasively asserts that the Examiner has
misconstrued the scope of the claims and, in doing so, has failed to establish
a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that Auxier discloses
the structure of a "channel," where it is a cold surface that is "defining" the
channel, as required by the claims. Accordingly, based on the record before
us-because an anticipation rejection requires a finding in a single reference
of each and every limitation as set forth in the claims-we cannot sustain
Rejection I. Regarding Rejections II-IV, we note that these rejections are
premised on the same purported disclosure from Auxier, and that Ward,
Kendall, and Bhangu are relied on for teaching additional features, but not to
6
Appeal2013-008290
Application 12/286,705
cure the deficiency of Auxier identified above. See Final Act. 6-11. Thus,
we also cannot sustain Rejections II, III, or IV.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-16.
REVERSED
7