Ex Parte FriisDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 24, 201812883260 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 12/883,260 09/16/2010 Johan Friis 2009P10728US 4503 22116 7590 01/26/2018 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 01/26/2018 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHAN FRIIS Appeal 2016-004652 Application 12/883,260 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Johan Friis (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13—15, 18—24, 26—28, 33, 35, 37, and 38.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-004652 Application 12/883,260 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention “relates to an impingement baffle for a gas turbine engine.” Spec. 12. Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the clamed subject matter. 13. An impingement baffle for a gas turbine engine, comprising: a fastening element at both of two free ends, wherein the impingement baffle is a one piece impingement ring, the one piece impingement ring being a split ring that is split at a single location, and wherein the fastening element enables the closing of the impingement ring, wherein a first fastening element comprises a male connection flap and a second fastening element comprises a female connection flap, and wherein the male connection flap and the female connection flap are arranged at a first free end of the impingement ring and overlap with complementary connection flaps arranged at a second free end of the impingement ring. REJECTIONS 1) Claims 13—15, 18—21, 23, 24, 26—28, 33, 35, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eckert (US 4,303,371, issued Dec. 1. 1981), Kirkpatrick (US 5,078,535, issued Jan 7, 1992), and Yu (US 2006/0110216 Al, published May 25, 2006). 2) Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eckert, Kirkpatrick, Yu, and Ballard (US 8,231,338 B2, issued July 31, 2012). 2 Appeal 2016-004652 Application 12/883,260 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 In the rejection of claim 13, the Examiner finds that Eckert discloses an impingement baffle for a gas turbine engine where the baffle “is a one- piece impingement ring.” Final Act. 3 (citing Eckert 4:1—5). The Examiner finds that Kirkpatrick discloses “[a] split ring, split at a single location, comprising a fastening element at both of the two free ends, wherein the fastening element enables closing of the ring.” Id. at 4 (citing Kirkpatrick, Figs. 8, 9, 3:20-25). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Eckert’s one-piece impingement ring to be “a split ring, split at a single location comprising a fastening element at both of the two free ends, and wherein the fastening element enables the closing of the impingement ring” in order to “tightly and securely lock[] the ring prior to installing it in the turbine shroud.” Id. The Examiner finds that Yu discloses a joint with a first fastening element comprising a male connection flap and a second fastening element comprising a female connection flap. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to further modify Eckert’s impingement ring “with the flaps and configuration of Yu for the purpose of allowing a fastener to join the plates through holes in each beam. By being parallel and displaced to each other, the holes in each beam line up, thus providing no obstruction to the fasteners.” Id. at 4—5. Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Eckert’s impingement ring to make it a split ring. Br. 6—7. In support of this contention, Appellant argues that neither Kirkpatrick nor Yu relate to gas turbine engines. Id. at 5. According to Appellant, Kirkpatrick relates to “flexible elements to be wrapped and secured in cylindrical form . . 3 Appeal 2016-004652 Application 12/883,260 . for use in conjunction with a cylindrical anvil roller” and “Yu relates to a joint... for use in a table set.” Id. Further, Appellant argues that Eckert discloses “a ‘continuous 360°’ impingement baffle” that forms “a substantially leak-free plenum.” Id. at 6. Appellant asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered splitting Eckert’s baffle because “leakage would be increased.” Id. at 7. Appellant further contends that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight because the only teaching in the record of a split impingement baffle for a gas turbine appears in Appellant’s Specification. Id. The Examiner responds that the modified impingement baffle “would still be a 360-degree impingement baffle” and “the free ends of the modified baffle are connected.” Ans. 3. The Examiner asserts that the result “will still be a continuous ring providing a substantially leak-free plenum.” Id. at 4. For the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13. Appellant discloses several advantages of the impingement ring recited in claim 13 over a continuous impingement ring including ease of fixing “the impingement ring ... at the appropriate gas turbine element.” Spec. 111. Eckert discloses an “impingement baffle 38 formed in a continuous ring.” Eckert, 4: 4—5. Neither Kirkpatrick nor Yu relate to gas turbines or an impingement baffle in gas turbines. See Kirkpatrick, Abstract, 1:8—14; Yu 12, Fig. 6. The Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure of a split ring impingement baffle for a gas turbine engine as recited in claim 13 nor has the Examiner adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Eckert’s continuous ring baffle to be a split ring baffle. Although Kirkpatrick and Yu disclose certain structure that could 4 Appeal 2016-004652 Application 12/883,260 theoretically be applied to joining a split metal ring, the mere disclosure of that structure in Kirkpatrick and Yu does not provide a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eckert’s continuous impingement ring in the first instance. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 13 because the rejection lacks a rational underpinning. In rejecting independent claim 26, the Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning as for claim 13. Final Act. 7—8. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 26 for the same reasons stated for claim 13. Claims 14, 15, 18—21, 23, and 24 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13. Br. 8—9 (Claims App.). Claims 27, 28, 33, 35, 37, and 38 depend directly or indirectly from claim 26. Id. at 9—10. We do not sustain the rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as stated for claims 13 and 26. Rejection 2 Claim 22 depends indirectly from claim 13. Br. 9 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim 22 based on the combination of Eckert, Kirkpatrick, and Yu with additional disclosure from Ballard. Final Act. 10. The Examiner does not rely on the additional disclosure from Ballard to cure the deficiencies in the combination of Eckert, Kirkpatrick, and Yu as stated above in connection with claim 13. Id. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 22 for the same reasons stated for claim 13. 5 Appeal 2016-004652 Application 12/883,260 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13—15, 18—24, 26—28, 33, 35, 37, and 38 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation