Ex Parte Klasing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2013

11642002 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte KEVIN SAMUEL KLASING, CHING-PANG LEE
and SCOTT DAVID HUNTER
________________

Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE and
BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-21. App. Br. 4. Claim 17 has been
canceled. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter pertains to increasing the efficiency of
gas turbine engines and more particularly to a stator bullnose cooperating
with a rotary seal “for reducing aerodynamic losses thereat.” Spec. paras.
[0001], [0020]. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A turbine stage comprising:
an annular combustor;
a first stage turbine stator nozzle directly following said
combustor, and including a row of vanes mounted between
inner and outer bands, and said inner band includes a radially
inwardly extending mounting flange;
a row of blades mounted to a perimeter of a rotor disk
and spaced aft from said mounting flange to define a forward
cavity for channeling purge air therethrough;
each blade including an inner platform adjoining said
inner band at a rotary seal therewith disposed atop said forward
cavity for discharging said purge air; and
said inner band terminates at a trailing edge thereof and
includes a full height bullnose extending radially inwardly from
said vanes to said trailing edge for reducing aerodynamic
losses at said rotary seal.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Shepherd US 5,252,026 Oct. 12, 1993
Correia US 5,358,374 Oct. 25, 1994
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

3
Kuwabara US 6,572,335 B2 Jun 3, 2003

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Shepherd. Ans. 4.
2. Claims 11-13, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kuwabara. Ans. 5.
3. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuwabara and of Shepherd. Ans. 5.
4. Claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Shepherd and Correia. Ans. 7.
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Shepherd, Correia and Kuwabara. Ans. 9.
6. Claims 2, 3, 12-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shepherd and Kuwabara. Ans. 10.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 as being anticipated by Shepherd
Independent claims 1 and 11 are separately argued and will be
separately addressed. Claim 1 includes the limitation “said inner band
terminates at a trailing edge thereof and includes a full height bullnose
extending radially inwardly from said vanes to said trailing edge for
reducing aerodynamic losses at said rotary seal.” We note that the claim
terms “bullnose” and “edge” are not expressly defined in Appellants’
Specification but each term is used therein consistent with its dictionary
definition. The claim term “bullnose” is defined as “a rounded or obtuse
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

4
exterior angle, as the corner made by two walls.”1 A similar definition is
also proffered by Appellants and accepted by the Examiner. App. Br. 20;
Ans. 14. The claim term “edge” is defined as “a line or border at which a
surface terminates.”2 During prosecution before the Office, claims are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We
thus understand this limitation as broadly reciting an inner band that
terminates at a trailing line or border (“edge”) and that this inner band
includes a rounded exterior angle or corner (“bullnose”) that extends
inwardly from the vanes to this trailing line or border (“edge”).
The Examiner has identified corresponding inner band 26 and
bullnose 46 of Shepherd and finds that the “inner band terminates axially aft
at a trailing edge of the inner band.” Ans. 4. The Examiner does not
specifically identify the trailing edge in Shepherd’s drawings nor do
Appellants specifically identify the trailing edge in their drawings.
Appellants contend that “Shepherd fails to disclose any ‘stator
bullnose 46’” and instead discloses an “aft edge [that] is predominantly
radially flat or blunt, with a small curved transition to the horizontal or axial
surface 40.” App. Br. 16. Appellants’ acknowledgement of Shepherd’s
disclosure of “a small curved transition to the horizontal” appears to be an
acknowledgement that Shepherd discloses a bullnose as that term is defined
supra. Nevertheless, Appellants provide an enlargement of Shepherd’s Fig.

1 Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
196 (1989).
2 Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
453 (1989).
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

5
1 and focus on the flat or blunt portion downstream Shepherd’s curved
portion. App. Br. 16, 17. Appellants contend that this enlargement shows
that Shepherd’s “inner band 26 clearly does not terminate in any bullnose
extending from the vanes 28 to the terminating trailing edge, but terminates
solely at the vertically flat trailing edge.” App. Br. 17. Appellants’
argument that Shepherd’s inner band does not terminate in any bullnose is
not consistent with the claim limitation which is directed to an inner band
that terminates “at a trailing edge” and that the bullnose merely extends “to
said trailing edge.”
Appellants also contend that the reduction of aerodynamic loss
“cannot occur in Shepherd in view of the different configuration thereof.”
App. Br. 17. However, Appellants have not provided evidence or
declarations to this effect and instead rely on attorney argument3 that
Shepherd’s upper curved corner would not have the same effect on
aerodynamic loss as Appellants’ upper curved corner. To this point, the
Examiner has found that Shepherd’s configuration “is inherently of the same
claimed configuration” as Appellants’ device (Ans. 12, 14) and we are
instructed that when relying on the theory of inherency, the Examiner has
the initial burden of providing a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to
reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent
characteristic reasonably flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.
See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner

3 See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s
arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); see also In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (lawyer arguments and conclusory statements
which are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative
value).
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

6
finds that “the bullnose 46 of Shepherd is considered to be configured for
reducing aerodynamic losses at the rotary seal,” and that it would also
experience the Coanda effect, because the convex configuration of
Shepherd’s seal is “the same claimed configuration” as that of Appellants’
device which provides such advantages. Ans. 12, see also 14. We are
further instructed that once the PTO establishes a prima facie case of
anticipation based on inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove
that the prior art does not possess the characteristic at issue. King, 801 F.2d
at 1327. See also In re Best.4 Accordingly, and based on the record
presented, we are not persuaded that the Coanda effect would react any
differently whether the gas flows over Shepherd’s inner band with trailing
bullnose or over Appellants’ inner band with trailing bullnose.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in not addressing
Appellants’ enlargement of Shepherd’s Fig. 1. App. Br. 18, Reply Br. 3-4.
The Examiner finds that “Appellants’ enlargement of figure 1 of Shepherd
provides distortion of the bullnose, and that in the examiner’s view, original
figures 1 and 2 of Shepherd that are present in the printed patent should be
utilized, and clearly show element 46 to be a bullnose.” Ans. 13. The
Examiner’s reluctance to rely on enlargements due to distortions is
reasonable because an enlargement of Appellants’ figure also appears to
distort Appellants’ bullnose 62 by disclosing a flat or blunt downstream
portion similar in kind (but perhaps not in size) to that which Appellants rely

4 It is well settled that where “the claimed and prior art products are identical
or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially
identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior
art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his
claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

7
on to distinguish their claimed invention from Shepherd. We thus do not
fault the Examiner’s reluctance to rely on enlargements in this matter due to
distortions.
Appellants also assert that this enlargement indicates that Shepherd’s
terminating end lacks a “full height” bullnose. Ans. 16, 19. Appellants’
contention is not persuasive as nowhere do Appellants show where
Shepherd’s curvature from one surface to another is truncated or interrupted.
Appellants also contend that “Shepherd is completely silent on any
stated problem or unexpected result or any reduction in aerodynamic losses
at the flat aft edge 46.” App. Br. 20. Appellants provide no support to the
effect that a rejection under Section 102 requires the problem solved to be
stated or requires a statement addressing unexpected results. We instead
agree with the Examiner that “this is not a requirement under a section 102
rejection.” Ans. 14. We have been instructed that claims must be
distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, our
reviewing court has provided guidance to the effect that one skilled in the art
is able to read a reference for all that it teaches and not limit a reference to
its preferred embodiment. See Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter
AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We also note Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983) to the effect that
what matters is whether all of the limitations of the claim are found in the
reference, not whether the reference “teaches” what the subject application
teaches.
Appellants also appear to imply that Shepherd’s corner is “relatively
square” when it is clearly (and as acknowledged supra) curved. App. Br. 17.
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

8
Regarding independent claim 11, Appellants present similar
arguments as set forth with respect to claim 1. Additionally, Appellants
contend that the “aft edge 46 in Shepherd is clearly flat over its substantially
full height, with the arcuate transition to the surface 62 being relatively
short, and the examiner has not and cannot show otherwise.” App. Br. 22.
The relative size of Shepherd’s “arcuate transition” (i.e. bullnose) is not at
issue. What is at issue is whether Shepherd discloses the structure claimed,
i.e., an inner band that terminates axially aft at a trailing edge with this inner
band including a bullnose that is arcuate to this trailing edge. Appellants’
focus on the size of Shepherd’s bullnose is misplaced.
Based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 11 as being anticipated by Shepherd.

The rejection of claims 11-13, 18 and 21 as being anticipated by Kuwabara
Appellants present separate arguments for each of these claims. App.
Br. 24-33. We address each claim separately.
Claim 11 requires that “said inner band terminates axially aft at a
trailing edge thereof and includes a bullnose being arcuate both axially and
radially from said vanes to said trailing edge.” The Examiner references
Kuwabara’s Fig. 10 and more specifically identifies item 39 as an inner
band with a bullnose atop thereof. Ans. 5. Appellants contend that “the
examiner has failed to recognize that figure 10 in Kuwabara is a crude
schematic” and that corresponding Fig. 11 provides less crude details of Fig.
10. App. Br. 24, see also Ans. 26 and Reply Br. 5. As the issue here is the
curvature of the aft end of the inner band, we agree with the Examiner that
“Figure 10 is a cross sectional view, and clearly more accurately depicts the
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

9
claimed bullnose configuration” as contrasted with Fig. 11 which is a
perspective view and does not depict any cross section of the bullnose. Ans.
16. We further note that the quality of the figure has little to do with what
the figure may actually disclose. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in applying Fig. 10 of Kuwabara.
Appellants also address the Examiner’s reluctance to consider an
enlargement of Kuwabara’s Fig. 10. App. Br. 25, Reply Br. 3-4, Ans. 17.
However, we do not find Appellants’ contentions to be persuasive in view of
similar contentions, and our analysis thereof, made with respect to Shepherd
supra. Appellants rely on this enlargement to show that Kuwabara’s inner
band 39 “clearly terminates in a radially flat and blunt configuration.” App.
Br. 25. More specifically, Appellants contend that the “convex portion in
inner shroud 39 of Kuwabara, as shown in figure 10, does not terminate aft
at the trailing edge of that inner shroud, but terminates upstream therefrom.”
App. Br. 25. Appellants’ arguments notwithstanding, claim 11 requires an
inner band to terminate “at a trailing edge” with this inner band including a
bullnose that is arcuate “to said trailing edge.” As these claim terms are
broadly construed (supra) Appellants do not persuade us that Kuwabara’s
item 39 fails to terminate “at a trailing edge” (i.e. line or border) or that
Kuwabara’s curved corner does not extend “to said trailing edge.”
Appellants also address the lack of any stated problem being solved
by Kuwabara’s item 39 along with no unexpected results (App. Br. 26) but
again, Appellants provide no support to the effect that a rejection under
Section 102 requires the problem solved to be stated or requires a statement
addressing unexpected results (see Ans. 17). Appellants also contend that,
as with Shepherd, “Kuwabara will clearly promote aerodynamic losses.”
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

10
App. Br. 26. This contention is believed in response to the Examiner’s
finding that “the bullnose of Kuwabara is configured for reducing
aerodynamic losses at the rotary seal, since it is inherently of the same
claimed configuration.” Ans. 16-17. As above, upon a finding of inherency,
the burden shifts to Appellants and Appellants do not provide any persuasive
evidence that rebuts the Examiner’s findings other than attorney argument.
Independent Claim 21 further recites “a first stage turbine nozzle” in
addition to limitations directed to an inner band, a bullnose and a trailing
edge. Appellants employ many of the same arguments as employed supra
and also dispute that Kuwabara’s “nozzle 37 may be considered as a first
stage nozzle” and further that “the Kuwabara inventors themselves
understood the structural differences between first and second stage
nozzles.” App. Br. 27-28. The Examiner contends that claim 21 “does not
recite any structural features that relate to the stage number” and further that
the “nozzle 37 may be designated as a first stage nozzle, since the
designation of a stage number is arbitrary without reference to any structural
features that relate to the stage number.” Ans. 18.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive and specifically Appellants’
contention that Kuwabara’s inventors understand the structural differences
between first and second stage nozzles. This is because Appellants and
Kuwabara use the term “stage” and “first stage” differently. For example,
Appellants identify “stage” as including both a stator nozzle and a row of
turbine blades (Spec. para. [0020]) while Kuwabara uses the term “stage” to
mean either a moving blade or a stationary blade, but not both together
(Kuwabara 1:25-47). Further, Appellants employ the term “first stage” to
mean the first of a series of stages in that specific component (for example,
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

11
booster compressor 16 has four stages, high pressure compressor 18 has
seven stages, high pressure turbine 22 is a single stage turbine and low
pressure turbine 24 has five stages). Spec. paras. [0030]-[0034]. Appellants
identify the single stage in component 22 as the “first stage” despite
component 22 being an intermediate component. Spec. paras. [0034],
[0037], see also Reply Br. 8-9 regarding Appellants’ discussion of the
sequential numbering of stages. In contrast, Kuwabara identifies blade 32 as
“first stage” and also identifies downstream blade 35 in the same component
as “first stage.” Kuwabara 1:25-28. Unlike Appellants, Kuwabara makes a
distinction between multiple “first stages” depending on whether it is
stationary or moving and not sequentially as do Appellants. Hence, the
meaning of both “stage” and “first stage” varies depending on the user and
as such, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that “‘first stage
turbine nozzle’ is clearly a term of art.” Reply Br. 7, see also 9.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, the Examiner’s finding that
the “designation of a stage number is arbitrary” is not unreasonable.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner “overlooks that the first
stage turbine nozzle directly follows the combustor.” App. Br. 28.
However, the limitation of “directly following said combustor” arises in
claim 1, not claim 21; and claim 1 is not rejected here as being anticipated
by Kuwabara. Appellants’ contention is not persuasive.
Regarding the limitations of dependent claims 12 and 13, the
Examiner indicates where Kuwabara discloses these additional limitations.
Ans. 5. However, Appellants do not address the specific rejections of claims
12 and 13 but instead provide arguments directed to their parent claim
regarding Kuwabara’s item 39. App. Br. 29.
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

12
Regarding claim 18, Appellants address whether Kuwabara discloses
a bullnose and not the Examiner’s additional rejection of claim 18 and the
stated reasons for this rejection. App. Br. 29.
Based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 11-13, 18 and 21.

The rejection of claims 1-3 as being unpatentable
over Kuwabara and of Shepherd
More specifically with respect to claim 1, Appellants rely on many of
the arguments previously addressed and also contend that the Examiner has
not provided any weight to the claim language that a first stage turbine stator
nozzle “directly following said combustor.” App. Br. 32. Appellants do not
comprehend how the Examiner can find (Ans. 6) that Kuwabara’s nozzle 37
follows combustor 30 when nozzle 32 is disposed therebetween. App. Br.
32. The Examiner’s stated basis is “because [nozzle 37] is in flow alignment
with the discharge of combustion gases from the combustor.” Ans. 18.
As understood from Kuwabara’s Fig. 10, the prior art turbine
(unnumbered) illustrated therein directly follows combustor 30. Kuwabara
discloses that this prior art turbine includes nozzles 37. Kuwabara 1:31.
Kuwabara does not disclose any structure between the combustor and the
turbine other than fitting flange 31 connecting the two together. Kuwabara
1:16-19. Hence, because the turbine is in direct flow alignment with the
combustor, it does not appear unreasonable for the Examiner to find that the
turbine’s nozzle 37 directly follows the combustor. Ans. 6. Appellants do
not show that the Examiner’s reliance on flow alignment is in error but
instead Appellants focus on other turbine components without disputing that
the turbine directly follows the combustor. We have previously addressed
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

13
Appellants’ contentions regarding “first stage” and accordingly, Appellants’
contentions are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Appellants do not address the
additional rejections of these claims provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 6.
Instead, Appellants contend that Kuwabara’s inner band 34 lacks a bullnose
(App. Br. 33) and do not show how the Examiner’s specific rejections of
claims 2 and 3 are in error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3.

The rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-16, 19 and 20
as being unpatentable over Shepherd and Correia
Appellants present separate arguments for each of these dependent
claims. App. Br. 33-40. We address each claim separately.
Appellants begin by discussing the rejections of parent claims 1 and
11 and proffer arguments previously made which are not considered
persuasive. App. Br. 34. Specifically addressing the dependent claims at
issue in this rejection, Appellants contend that the reason for combining
Shepherd and Correia is a “fabrication” and based on “hindsight.” App. Br.
34. The Examiner’s stated reason for the above combination is “for the
purpose of providing a seal at the stator band and the rotor platform to
prevent leakage of combustion gases.” Ans. 8. This is nearly a direct quote
from Correia which provides guidance to “provide separate sealed cavities
as is conventionally known for preventing leakage of the hot combustion
gas.” Correia 4:14-17. We thus are not persuaded that the Examiner’s
stated reason is either a fabrication or is based on hindsight.
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

14
Appellants also argue that Correia fails to disclose certain claim
limitations (App. Br. 34), but the Examiner has not relied on Correia for that
teaching and hence Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Appellants further address the Federal Circuit’s discussion regarding
holding an invention obvious on the basis of engineering principles as well
as “a subjective view of ‘common experience.’” App. Br. 35. The features
relied on by the Examiner when referencing Correia are expressly illustrated
and discussed (Ans. 8); they are not “subjective” as Appellants imply.
More specifically with respect to claims 2 and 12, Appellants do not
argue the specific rejection of these claims but instead challenge the
Examiner’s reason to combine Shepherd and Correia. Appellants do not
persuade us that the Examiner’s grounds of rejection lack articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Appellants do not argue the Examiner’s
specific rejection of these claims (see Ans. 7) but instead contends that
Shepherd’s inner band 26 “clearly terminates at the blunt and flat aft end 46”
(App. Br. 36). Appellants are not addressing the Examiner’s additional
rejection of these two dependent claims but instead the rejection of their
respective parent claims.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, again Appellants are not addressing the
specific rejection of these claims by the Examiner. Ans. 7. Instead,
Appellants contend that Shepherd’s configuration “teaches away” from the
claimed configuration. Appellants’ contention is not persuasive in view of
instructions from our reviewing court that the “prior art’s mere disclosure of
more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

15
these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Appellants contend that Shepherd’s aft
end of inner band 26 “is clearly blunt and cannot converge in the manner
recited in these claims” and further that Appellants’ “recited stator bullnose
62 is expressly tailored for reducing aerodynamic losses, with the specific
Coanda configuration being optimum.” App. Br. 37. We note that
Appellants argue a difference in function, not structure, and Appellants’
argument do not persuade us that the Examiner’s finding that such function
would be inherent in Shepherd’s configuration is in error. Appellants also
do not argue the Examiner’s specific rejection of these dependent claims.
Ans. 7.
Regarding claim 6, Appellants again are not arguing the specific
rejection of this claim. App. Br. 37.
Claim 7 includes the additional limitation that both the stator and rotor
bullnoses “are fully convex in radial elevation.” Appellants contend that
both Shepherd and Correia lack this claim limitation. App. Br. 37.
Appellants appear to be ignoring the fully curved corners disclosed in both
references and do not persuade us that these curved corners are truncated or
otherwise curtailed or shortened, i.e., not “fully convex” as claimed.
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 19, Appellants do not address
Shepherd’s item 54 identified by the Examiner as the claimed “stator wing.”
Ans. 7. In fact, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s specific rejection
of claims 9 and 19 but instead reiterate that both Shepherd and Correia
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

16
“terminate in blunt aft ends and therefore do not share the special
combination of features recited in these claims.” App. Br. 38.
Both claims 10 and 14 include the additional limitation of the inner
band further including “a lower surface under said stator bullnose disposed
generally parallel to and axially overlapping said rotor wing.” Appellants
identify lower surface 70 as disclosing this limitation and contend that
neither Shepherd nor Correia disclose “any analogous lower surface 70
under the stator bullnose” that terminates as claimed. Here, Appellants are
silent with respect to and do not address the corresponding lower surface of
Shepherd which the Examiner indicates is “near 60.” Ans. 7. Appellants
also re-argue the matter of the bullnose which has previously been discussed
and decided.
Claim 19 is directed to an additional limitation concerning a certain
configuration of the mounting flange and also a stator wing extending aft
from the mounting flange. Appellants contend that this configuration is not
shown in Shepherd or Correia. App. Br. 38. The Examiner relies on
Shepherd for teaching this configuration, not Correia (Ans. 7). Further, like
Appellants’ item 72, Shepherd’s item 54 extends from a support that is itself
supported by corresponding mounting flange (48) which is similar to
Appellants’ configuration that likewise discloses a support extending from
the mounting flange (also numbered 48). Appellants do not persuade us that
there is any claimed structural difference between the two manners of
support.
Dependent claim 20 includes the further limitation of a “cavity
disposed between said nozzle and rotor disk.” Appellants do not dispute the
existence of such a cavity in the references but instead addresses the
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

17
termination of Shepherd’s inner band 26 which has previously been
discussed. App. Br. 39. We note once again that the limitation set forth in
parent claim 11 (similar to that in independent claim 1) specifies that the
inner band “terminates axially aft at a trailing edge thereof” and not “in a
stator bullnose” as Appellants assert. App. Br. 39.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-16, 19 and 20 as being obvious
over Shepherd and Correia.

The rejection of claim 8 as being
unpatentable over Shepherd, Correia and Kuwabara
Claim 8 ultimately depends from claim 1 and further requires that the
“stator bullnose has a larger radius of curvature than said rotor bullnose.” In
rejecting this claim, the Examiner states that “Kuwabara is merely relied
upon to teach a stator bullnose having a larger radius of curvature than the
rotor bullnose.” Ans. 23. Appellants contend the Examiner has relied on
“hindsight” as the basis for this rejection and that the stated reason for the
rejection of claim 8 is faulty (App. Br. 40). Notably, Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s specific reliance on Kuwabara for teaching the
additional limitation of claim 8. Further, Appellants do not show where the
Examiner’s stated reason to combine,5 which is similar to that previously
discussed, is in error or lacks articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning as required. See KSR 550 U.S. at 418. Appellants’ reiteration

5 The Examiner states that it would have been obvious to combine the
references “for the purpose of providing a seal at the stator band and the
rotor platform to prevent leakage of combustion gases.” Ans. 9-10.

Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

18
of arguments previously presented are also not persuasive. App. Br. 40-42.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.

The rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 12-16, 19 and 20
as being unpatentable over Shepherd and Kuwabara
Appellants argue these claims together and Appellants also present
separate additional arguments specific to each claim. App. Br. 42-48.
Regarding Appellants’ common assertions, Appellants address parent claims
1 and 11 stating that the features disclosed in the cited art “teach away from
Appellants’ claims” and that the Examiner has not provided sufficient legal
motivation for their combination. App. Br. 43. We are not persuaded by
these assertions for reasons similar to those previously discussed.
More specifically with respect to claims 2 and 12, Appellants again
assert that Shepherd’s “inner band 26 terminates in the blunt and flat aft end
46” and argues a distinction of Kuwabara’s “second stage blades 37” (App.
Br. 43) rather than address the Examiner’s specific reason for the rejection
of these dependent claims (Ans. 10). Appellants also contend that the cited
references “provide no problems relevant to any combination of the
disparate disclosures.” App. Br. 43-44. We disagree with Appellants as the
Examiner has provided a reason for their combination (Ans. 11) and
Appellants cite no authority that the cited art needs to identify the specific
problem Appellants address.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Appellants do not argue the Examiner’s
specific rejection of these claims (see Ans. 10) but instead contends that
Shepherd’s inner band 26 “clearly terminates at the blunt and flat aft end 46”
(App. Br. 44). Appellants are not addressing the Examiner’s specific
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

19
rejection of these two dependent claims but instead re-argue the rejection of
their respective parent claims.
Claim 14 includes the additional limitation of the inner band further
including “a lower surface under said bullnose disposed generally parallel to
and axially overlapping said rotor wing.” Appellants identify lower surface
70 as disclosing this limitation and contend that neither Shepherd nor
Kuwabara disclose “any analogous lower surface joining an arcuate
bullnose.” App. Br. 44-45. Here, Appellants are silent with respect to and
do not address the corresponding lower surface of Shepherd which the
Examiner indicates is “near 60.” Ans. 10. Appellants also re-argue the
rejection of the parent claim.
Regarding claim 15, Appellants contend that “Shepherd and
Kuwabara are blunt or right-angled without any convex curvature.” App.
Br. 45. Appellants’ contention that Shepherd’s aft end is blunt or right-
angled and without convex curvature is without merit in view of Shepherd’s
Fig. 10.
Regarding claim 16, Appellants contend that Shepherd’s aft end of
inner band 26 “is clearly blunt and cannot converge in the manner recited in
these claims” and further that Appellants’ “recited stator bullnose 62 is
expressly tailored for reducing aerodynamic losses, with the specific Coanda
configuration being optimum.” App. Br. 45. We note that Appellants argue
a difference in function, not structure, and Appellants do not persuade us
that the Examiner’s finding that such function would be inherent in
Shepherd’s configuration is in error. Appellants also do not argue the
specific rejection of dependent claim 16 directed to both the inner band and
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

20
the blade platform being “coextensive in elevation at the rotary seal” that
converge radially inwardly. Ans. 10.
As mentioned previously, claim 19 requires an additional limitation
directed to a certain configuration of the mounting flange and a stator wing
extending aft from the mounting flange. Appellants contend that this
configuration is not shown in Shepherd or Kuwabara. App. Br. 45-46. The
Examiner relies on Shepherd for teaching this configuration, not Kuwabara.
Ans. 10. Further, like Appellants’ item 72, Shepherd’s item 54 extends from
a support that is itself supported by corresponding mounting flange (48)
which is similar to Appellants’ configuration that likewise discloses a
support extending from the mounting flange (also numbered 48). Appellants
do not persuade us that there is any claimed structural difference between
the two manners of support.
As mentioned previously, claim 20 includes the further limitation of a
“cavity disposed between said nozzle and rotor disk.” Appellants do not
dispute the existence of such a cavity in the references but instead contends
that Shepherd’s inner band 26 “terminates in the blunt aft end 46” which has
previously been addressed. App. Br. 46. Appellants do not address the
Examiner’s specific rejection of claim 20. Ans. 10.
Accordingly, and in view of the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 12-16, 19 and 20 as being obvious over
Shepherd and Kuwabara.
Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’
contentions and the preponderance of relevant evidence, we are of the
opinion that Appellants have not successfully rebutted the Examiner’s
grounds of rejection.
Appeal 2010-010434
Application 11/642,002

21

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16 and 18-21 are affirmed.
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
tj