Ex Parte Moehrle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

13279396 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2017)

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.
13/279,396 10/24/2011 FRANK MOF.HRT.F. 2011P08399US01 7231
28524 7590 09/25/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
NEUBAUER, THOMAS L
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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 FRANK MOEHRLE, ANDREW R. NARCUS, JOHN CARELLA,
and JEAN-MAX MILLON SAINTE-CLAIRE
Appeal 2016-000662
Application 13/279,396
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 3—9, and 11—22. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Siemens Energy, Inc.”
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-000662
Application 13/279,396
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “relates to seals in the combustion section
of gas turbines, and particularly to upper and lower seals between the
transition duct and the turbine inlet.” (Spec. 1,11. 7—8.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A seal for a turbine combustion system, comprising;
a first strip extending along a circumferential length of a
rail of an upper or lower span of a transition exit frame;
a tab extending axially from an intermediate portion of
the first strip along a gap between the transition exit frame and
a turbine inlet and into a circumferentially extending groove in
a retainer ring of the turbine inlet;
a second strip cantilevered from the first strip, said
second strip configured to contact a forward surface of the rail
on an opposite side of the rail from the gap;
the second strip and the intermediate portion of the first
strip forming a spring clamp along the circumferential length of
the rail; and
the second strip comprising a bead, wherein the rail is
flexibly clamped between the bead and the intermediate portion
of the first strip;
wherein the tab forms a first edge of the first strip, and
the second strip is attached to the first strip along a second edge
of the first strip opposite to the first edge.
References
Ress US 6,076,835 June 20, 2000
More US 6,968,615 B1 Nov. 29, 2005
Weaver US 2008/0053107 A1 Mar. 6, 2008
Johnson US 2008/0166233 A1 July 10, 2008
Maldonado US 2010/0247286 A1 Sept. 30, 2010
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite. (Final Action 3.)
2
Appeal 2016-000662
Application 13/279,396
II. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3—5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson and Weaver. (Final
Action 4.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson and Weaver. (Final
Action 14.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Johnson, Weaver, and Maldonado. (Final Action 19.)
V. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Johnson, Weaver, Maldonado, and More. (Final
Action 21.)
VI. The Examiner rejects claims 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnson, Weaver, Maldonado, More, and Ress. (Final
Action 22.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of
the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 3—9, 11, and 13—22) depending therefrom.
(See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 1 and 12 recite a “seal
for a turbine combustion system” having a “spring clamp” along and/or
covering the “circumferential length of [a] rail.” (Id.) In independent
claim 1, an intermediate portion of a “first strip” and a “second strip” form
the spring clamp; and in independent claim 12, the spring clamp comprises a
“first strip” and a “second strip.” (Id.) Independent claims 1 and 12
additionally recite a “tab” that forms “a first edge of the first strip.” (Id.)
3
Appeal 2016-000662
Application 13/279,396
Rejection I
As indicated above, independent claim 1 recites a “first strip,” and
independent claim 1 additionally recites that this first strip has a “first edge”
and a “second edge.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Claim 21, which depends
directly from independent 1, recites that “the first edge is a first axial end of
the seal and the second edge is a second axial edge of the seal.” {Id.,
emphasis added.) Claim 22, which also depends directly from independent
claim 1, recites that “the first edge is an inner radial surface of the seal and
the second edge is an outer radial surface of the seal.” {Id., emphasis
added.) The Examiner determines that the “axial” and “radial” orientations
recited in dependent claims 21 and 22 are “unclear” and that “clarification”
is required.” (Final Action 4.)
The Appellants argue the recited “axial” and “radial” orientations are
clearly delineated in the Specification. {See Appeal Br. 3 4.) We are
persuaded by this argument because the Specification defines “[a]xial” and
“radial” as “with respect to the turbine axis.” (Spec. 3,11. 11—12.) Using
this definition, the axial and radial orientations recited in dependent
claims 21 and 22 can be straightforwardly understood, and the scope of these
claims is reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Rejections II—VI
As indicated above, each of the independent claims 1 and 12 recites a
“first strip,” a “second strip,” and a “tab.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner’s rejections all rely upon Johnson disclosing a turbine-transition
seal comprising a first strip, a second strip, and a tab. {See Final Action 5.)
4
Appeal 2016-000662
Application 13/279,396
Johnson discloses a seal arrangement in which “a seal holder or bracket 36 is
secured at one end 38 to a support component 40 fixed to the first stage
nozzle 14.” (Johnson 117.) The purpose of Johnson’s seal holder 36 is to
“mount[ ] a cloth seal 42 such that the seal is received in [a] channel 28.”
{Id., emphasis added.) The Examiner equates Johnson’s seal holder 36 to
the claimed “first strip,” its cloth seal 42 to the claimed “second strip,” and
its end section 38 to the claimed “tab.”
Independent claims 1 and 12 further require the second strip to
comprise a “bead” or a bend providing a “bead.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that Weaver “teaches a bead for the purpose of
providing a flared free edge which assists assembly.” (Final Action 5.)
Weaver discloses a transition-to-turbine seal 300 comprising a spring-loaded
section 301 that contacts opposite sides of a rail 337 with “a desired
interference fit to achieve a specific spring-loaded sliding engagement.”
(Weaver, 132, see also id. Fig. 3B.) Weaver teaches that a “flared free
edge 307” may “assist assembly” when fitting section 301 over chamfered
comers of the rail 337. {Id. 133.)
The Examiner’s prior art rejections all rely upon a determination that
it would have been obvious “to modify Johnson[] with a bead as taught by
Weaver[] for the expected benefit of creating a lead in chafer that does not
initially contact the mating turbine frame on installation while adding
additional rigidity.” (Final Action 6; see also id. at 16.) The Appellants
argue that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning is not supported by rational
underpinnings. {See Reply Br. 3.) We are persuaded by the Appellants’
argument because the Examiner does not sufficiently explain why one of
ordinary skill would modify Johnson’s seal arrangement in the proposed
5
Appeal 2016-000662
Application 13/279,396
manner. As noted by the Appellants, “neither the term ‘lead’ nor ‘chafer’
appear[s] anywhere within Johnson or Weaver.” (Id. ) Additionally, the
Examiner does not adequately address why one of ordinary skill in the art
would infer that Johnson’s cloth seal 42 would need or want a lead in
chaffing and/or additional rigidity. And although Weaver’s spring-loaded
seal 300 may benefit from flared edges when fitting over chamfered comers,
the Examiner does not adequately address why the same would be tme with
Johnson’s cloth seal 42.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—9,
and 11-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—9 and 11—22.
REVERSED
6