Ex Parte Jain

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

13465559 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/465,559 05/07/2012 Ashok K. Jain
54549 7590 08/25/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
4125USAA;67097- l 156US2 4528
EXAMINER
BRAUCH, CHARLES JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHOK K. JAIN
Appeal2014-008937
Application 13/465,559
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-15 and 17-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-008937
Application 13/465,559
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to gas turbine engine systems involving
integrated fluid conduits. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a casing having an exterior defined, at least in part, by a
casing wall;
a fluid conduit integrated into the casing wall;
the fluid conduit comprises a conduit wall providing a
fluid-routing channel;
wherein the fluid-routing channel has a first portion
located radially outboard of the casing wall and a second portion
located radially inboard of the casing wall.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
iviayersky
Liang
Siebert
US 2002/0069647 Al June 13, 2002
US 2008/0286104 Al Nov. 20, 2008
US 7,941,993 B2 May 17, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 10-13, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Siebert.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Siebert.
Claims 5-7, 9, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Siebert and Mayersky.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Siebert and Liang.
2
Appeal2014-008937
Application 13/465,559
OPINION
Anticipation
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite "wherein the fluid-routing channel
has a first portion located radially outboard of the casing wall and a second
portion located radially inboard of the casing wall." Appeal Br. 5, 6 (Claims
App.). The Examiner initially identifies the area between the inner surface 2
and the outer surface 3 of Siebert as the claimed casing wall. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner further relies on Siebert's disclosure of each cavity 4 having
two exposed surfaces for teaching radially outboard and radially inboard
portions of the casing wall via fluid-routing channel 5. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner elaborates on his finding that Siebert
anticipates the gas turbine engine of claim 1, stating:
In the rejection of claim 1 above, the casing wall is stated to be
defined between the surfaces 2 and 3. Accordingly, the Office
sets the first surface of the casing wall to be 2 and the next surface
to be somewhere between 2 and 3, such as about 70% along the
vertical wall of the fluid channel 4. The result would be a fluid
routing channel with a radially inboard portion and a radially
outboard portion just like the Appellant's drawings as disclosed
in (FIG. 3).
Ans. 7.
Appellant challenges the Examiner's finding that Siebert discloses a
casing wall having a radially outboard portion and a radially inboard portion.
Appeal Br. 2, 3. In particular, Appellant alleges that the Examiner's
interpretation of "casing wall" is unreasonable (Reply Br. 1 ), and we agree.
Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation,
this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art
would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As
noted by Appellant: "[ o ]ne skilled in this art would not have reasonably
3
Appeal2014-008937
Application 13/465,559
considered an arbitrary line an end point for a 'casing wall.' If anything, one
would read the claimed 'casing wall' on the entirety of Siebert' s nacelle 1,
meaning the entire portion of the nacelle between elements 2 and 3." Reply
Br. 1-2. The Examiner's interpretation of "casing wall" set forth in the
Answer ignores outer surface 3 and is therefore unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Examiner's anticipation rejection based on Siebert
cannot be sustained on the record before us. As such, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 and their dependent claims 2--4,
11-13, 19, and 21.
Obviousness
The obviousness rejection of claim 20 in reliance on Siebert, the
obviousness rejection of claims 5-7, 9, 14, 15, and 18 in reliance on Siebert
and Mayersky, and the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 17 in reliance
on Siebert and Liang, also cannot stand as Siebert, Mayersky, and Liang
have not been relied upon to overcome the deficiencies of Siebert discussed
above with respect to claims 1 and 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-21 are reversed.
REVERSED
4