Ex Parte Moehrle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2017

13241443 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 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.
13/241,443 09/23/2011 Frank Moehrle 2011P08397US01 7706
28524 7590 07/03/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/03/2017 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, JOHN PULA,
JEREMY LEFLER, and MARTIN KONEN
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frank Moehrle et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief indicates Siemens Energy, Incorporated is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A support structure in a gas turbine combustor cap,
comprising;
a plurality of legs that each include a first and second end
and span between a first structure and a second structure; and
a crossbar attached to the second structure, wherein the
second ends of the plurality of legs are attached to opposite sides
of the crossbar, and wherein the crossbar comprises a generally
planar surface between the opposite sides;
wherein each leg comprises a generally planar plate except
having a curved section between the first and second ends of each
leg effective to provide a degree of thermal expansion
compliance between the first and second structures.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.
Claims 1—13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tuthill (US 2009/0293489 Al, published Dec. 3, 2009),
Commaret (US 7,661,273 B2, issued Feb. 16, 2010), and Saldin (US
2,795,108, issued June 11, 1957).2
2 In both the Final Office Action and Answer, the rejection heading does not
list claims 5 and 7. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 2. However, these claims are
addressed in the text of the rejection. Final Act. 6—7. Further, Appellants
present argument for claim 5 (Appeal Br. 8—10) and reference claim 7 (id. at
11—13), and the Examiner responds to the argument for claim 5 (Ans. 7). As
we understand that claims 5 and 7 are included in this rejection, we will
consider these claims in the appeal.
2
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tuthill, Commaret, Saldin, and Green (US 2009/0188255 Al, published July
30, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph
Claim 1 recites that “each leg comprises a generally planar plate
except having a curved section between the first and second ends of each
leg.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App. (emphasis added)). Claim 4 depends
directly from claim 3 and indirectly from claim 1 and recites that “the
plurality of legs comprises two legs attached to the crossbar in an overall
sectional geometry of three sides of an isosceles trapezoid, wherein the two
legs follow two equal sides of the isosceles trapezoid.’ '' Id. (emphasis
added). The Examiner determines that because the legs have a “curved
section,” the legs cannot, along with the crossbar, form an “isosceles
trapezoid.” Final Act. 2.
According to 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, “a claim in
dependent form shah contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and
then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.” Appellants
contend that claim 4 complies with § 112, fourth paragraph, because claim 4
references claim 3 and also specifies a further limitation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appellants add that the language of claim 4 is supported by the disclosure
that each leg 61, 62 of bracket 60 includes at least one curved section 63, 64,
and “[t]he brackets 60 may have a generally isosceles trapezoidal geometry
as shown, in which the two legs 61, 62 follow two equal sides of an
isosceles trapezoid.” Id. at 4; see Spec. 3:8—17 (emphasis added), Figs. 3, 4.
3
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
In response, the Examiner provides a definition of “trapezoid” as “a
shape with four straight sides, two of which are parallel.” Ans. 2—3. The
Examiner maintains that the claimed legs having a curved section and the
crossbar cannot together form an “isosceles trapezoid.” Id. at 3.
Appellants’ position is persuasive. Claim 4 does not recite that the
two legs and crossbar form an “isosceles trapezoid.” Rather, claim 4 recites
that the two legs and crossbar are “in an overall sectional geometry of three
sides of an isosceles trapezoid.” Claim 4 specifies the number of legs and
the “overall sectional geometry” of the support structure. Although the legs
recited in claim 4 are not entirely planar or straight, the Examiner does not
explain why, nonetheless, claim 4 fails to specify a further limitation of the
subject matter recited in claim 3. Absent such explanation, we agree with
Appellants that claim 4 complies with the requirements of § 112, fourth
paragraph, and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Rejection of claims 1—13, 15, and 16 as unpatentable
over Tuthill, Commaret, and Saldin
Claims 1—5, 11—13, and 16
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Tuthill discloses a support
structure 44 in a gas turbine combustor cap 30 comprising legs A, each
having a first end B and second end C attached to crossbar D, as identified in
the Examiner’s annotated Tuthill Figure 2. Final Act. 3—A. The Examiner
finds that Tuthill does not teach that each leg A comprises a generally planar
plate except having a curved section between the first and second ends. Id.
at 3. The Examiner finds that Commaret teaches legs having a generally
planar surface except for a curved section (curved ends 78, 80) between the
first and second ends of each leg, but does not teach that the curved ends
provide a degree of thermal expansion compliance between first and second
4
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
structures. Id. (citing Commaret, Fig. 6). The Examiner finds that Saldin
teaches loop portions 28, 29 in support members 25 which permit radial
differential thermal expansion of the structure through elastic deformation of
the supporting components. Id. at 3^4 (citing Saldin, col. 2,11. 8—57, Fig. 2).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Tuthill
to include the curved ends of Commaret to allow for radial differential
expansion of the structure, as taught by Saldin. Id. at 4 (citing Saldin, col. 2,
11. 43-57).
Appellants assert Tuthill discloses that the arrangement of struts 44
between the outer ring 52 and inner ring 56 forms a “very stiff structure . . .
to resist pressure pulsation induced vibrations of the liner cap assembly 30.”
Appeal Br. 6 (citing Tuthill para. 13, Fig. 2). Appellants also contend that
struts 44 are equivalent to the prior art bracket 50 shown in Figure 2 of
Appellants’ application. Id. Appellants point out that the Specification
describes that planar legs 51, 52 of bracket 50 “rigidly transfer loads
between the inner and outer support rings” and provide a “relatively stiff
degree of support between the rings 46, 48 that does not readily
accommodate thermally accommodate thermal influences between the rings
46, 48.” Id. (citing Spec. 2,11. 20-26).
Appellants challenge the proposed modification of TuthilFs struts 44,
which, according to Appellants, would both “(2) Bend each flat planar leg of
the struts 44 of Tuthill to be ‘curved like a U’, as with the feet 72, 74 of FIG.
4 in Commaret,” and “(3) Create indentations along the length of each leg of
the strut 44 of Tuthill, as with the indentation 78, 80 of the legs of the bridge
76 of FIG. 6 in Commaret.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellants point out that
Commaret’s bridge 76 is “elastically deformable.” Id. at 5—6 (citing
5
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
Commaret, col. 4,11. 28—32). Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
modification of Tuthill “would result in modified struts 44’ with curved U-
shaped legs and indentations along a length of the curved legs, so that the
struts 44’ are ‘elastically deformable.’” Id. at 6 (emphasis added).
We do not agree fully with Appellants’ understanding of the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Tuthill. As noted, the Examiner
proposes to modify Tuthill to “include the curved ends of Commaret.” Final
Act. 4. The “curved ends” are curved ends 78, 80 shown in Figure 6, which
the Examiner finds correspond to the respective “curved sections” of the legs
recited in claim 1. Id. at 3. This modification of Tuthill corresponds to
Appellants’ modification “(2)” noted above. It is our understanding that the
Examiner does not propose also making modification “(3)” above. In this
regard, the Examiner explains that “[t]he modification of Tuthill is to
include the arcuate midsection (78, 80) of Commaret and not the entire
structure of Figure 6[]” and “the ‘horizontal portion’ (74) of Commaret is
taught as a foot. . . and the foot (74) is not a modification to Tuthill, only the
arcuate sections (78, 80) of Commaret modify Tuthill.'1'’ Advisory Act. 2
(dated Oct. 31, 2014) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the rejection does not
further modify struts 44 of Tuthill to be “‘curved like a U’, as with the feet
72, 74” shown in Figure 4 of Commaret.
Nonetheless, the Examiner does not establish that modifying struts 44
of Tuthill only by incorporating curved ends 78, 80 of Commaret would
reasonably be expected to produce the claimed support structure. Commaret
discloses that “[i]t is possible to produce different surfaces of contact
between adjacent bridges. FIGS. 6 and 7 represent a bridge 76, 84 whose
curved ends 78, 80 comprise radial undulations engaged in matching
6
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
undulations formed at the curved ends 82 of an adjacent bridge.'1'’
Commaret, col. 5,11. 29—33 (emphasis added). Commaret describes the
purpose of such engagement between adjacent bridges, as follows:
During the operation of the turbomachine, the deformations of
the chamber 46 and of the casings 14, 18 lead the bent ends 68,
70 of the spring leaves 71 to come into contact (FIG. 5), which
modifies the stiffness of the assembly made up of the two spring
leaves 71 and makes the connection rigid between the inner
casing 14 or outer casing 18 and the chamber 46.
Id. at col. 5,11. 22—28 (emphasis added); Fig. 5. Accordingly, curved ends
78, 80 are provided in bridge 76 to engage with matching undulations in an
adjacent bridge, and this engagement would be expected to increase the
stiffness of the assembly of bridges 76.
In view of these teachings, the Examiner does not provide an adequate
reason with a rational underpinning to modify struts 44 of Tuthill to include
curved ends 78, 80. First, Tuthill does not indicate that struts 44 are
arranged in the combustor liner cap assembly such that adjacent ones of the
struts would experience the engagement described in Commaret.
Second, as noted, Tuthill’s struts 44 are provided in a “very stiff
structure ... to resist pressure pulsation induced vibrations of the liner cap
assembly 30.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). To the extent curved ends
78, 80 increase the stiffness of the assembly of bridges 76, the Examiner’s
modification would appear to increase the stiffness of Tuthill’s structure
attributed to struts 44. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner appears to
propose increasing the thickness of Tuthill’s modified struts including
Commaret’s “indentation” to maintain a “very stiff’ structure. Ans. 5. We
agree with Appellants that such further modification of struts 44 lacks a
rational underpinning, as it would make Tuthill’s structure stiffer and,
7
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
consequently, would essentially undo the proposed modification of Tuthill
incorporating the purportedly flexible closed ends 78, 80 of Commaret.
Reply Br. 4—5.
Third, although Commaret describes the bridges formed by spring
leaves as “elastically deformable” (see, e.g., Commaret, col. 4,11. 28—32),
Commaret does not appear to teach that such elasticity is due to curved ends
78, 80 in bridge 76. In fact, based on other disclosure in Commaret, elastic
deformation would be expected to be provided by a different portion of
bridge 76. That is, referring to the bridge including spring leaf 52 depicted
in Figure 3, Commaret states:
When the turbomachine is operating, the inner casing 14
and outer casing 18 and the walls 24 and 26 of the chamber 46
expand radially under the effect of the heat generated by the
combustion. The bridges may also deform to compensate for the
expansion thanks to their curved mid-portion 62 elongating
circumferentially.
Id. at col. 5,11. 1—6 (emphasis added), Fig. 3. Comparing the bridge with
spring leaf 52 to bridge 86 shown in Figure 6, the similar curved mid-portion
of bridge 86 would be expected to similarly deform to compensate for
thermal expansion. Absent any identified teaching in Commaret that curved
ends 78, 80 contribute to compensating for thermal expansion, the Examiner
has not established that modifying Tuthill in view of Commaret in the
manner proposed would be reasonably expected to “allow for differential
expansion of the structure.”
The Examiner’s reliance on Saldin does not cure the deficiencies of
Tuthill and Commaret. Saldin discloses that:
the several support elements 25 are adapted to cooperate to
permit differential thermal expansion of the structure, both radial
8
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
and axial, through elastic deformation of the supporting
components and with minimum stressing of the liner or outer
shell. Owing to the balanced arrangement of the oppositely
disposed corrugations or loop portions 28 and 29, each of the
support elements 25 is adapted to yield in a radial direction while
resisting any tendency toward rotary displacement of the liner
structure.
Saldin, col. 2,11. 43—53 (emphasis added), Figs. 1—3. Comparing the
arrangement and configuration of oppositely-disposed loop portions 28, 29
shown in Figure 3 of Saldin to the significantly-different shape and
arrangement of curved ends 78, 80 of Commaret, Saldin’s disclosure does
not reasonably support the Examiner’s conclusion that modifying Tuthill to
only include curved ends 78, 80 would allow for radial differential
expansion of the structure.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claims 2—5, 11—13, and 16.
Claims 6, 7, and 15
Claim 6 recites a support structure in a gas turbine combustor cap,
comprising, inter alia, a plurality of “brackets comprising a plurality of legs,
each leg projecting a planar shape when viewed in a direction perpendicular
to the longitudinal axis and projecting a curvilinear shape when viewed in a
direction parallel to the longitudinal axis” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.
(emphasis added)). The Examiner’s findings and reasoning in rejecting
claim 6 are similar to those for claim 1. Final Act. 4—5. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 6 and its dependent claims 7 and 15.
9
Appeal 2015-004943
Application 13/241,443
Claims 8—10
Claim 8 is directed to a support structure in a gas turbine combustor
cap and recites, inter alia, that “each leg comprises a shape exhibiting a
relatively higher degree of stiffness in a longitudinal direction and a
relatively lower degree of stiffness in a radial direction.” Appeal Br. 18
(Claims App.). The Examiner’s findings and reasoning in rejecting claim 8
are similar to those for claim 1. Final Act. 5. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 8 and its dependent claims 9 and 10.
Rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable over Tuthill, Commaret,
Saldin, and Green
The Examiner’s reliance on Green does not cure the deficiencies of
the rejection of claim 6, from which claim 14 depends. Final Act. 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16 is reversed.
REVERSED
10