Ex Parte Morgan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12615674 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/615,674 11/10/2009 Victor John Morgan
52082 7590 10/04/2016
General Electric Company
GE Global Patent Operation
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
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.
237797-1 1051
EXAMINER
LEE JR, WOODY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR JOHN MORGAN and DAVID RICHARD JOHNS
Appeal2014-008956
Application 12/615,674
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Victor John Morgan and David Richard Johns (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over Schonewald
(US 4,793,770; iss. Dec. 27, 1988) and Merrill (US 2010/0074726 Al; pub.
Mar. 25, 2010); (2) claims 3---6 as unpatentable over Schonewald, Merrill,
and Morrison (US 6,514,046 Bl; iss. Feb. 4, 2003);2 (3) claims 9-14 as
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schonewald. Ans. 9.
2 The Examiner mistakenly refers to Morrison as "Marshall" in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer. We can consider this to be inadvertent error.
Appeal2014-008956
Application 12/615,674
unpatentable over Schonewald, Merrill and Beeck (US 5,827,045; iss. Oct.
27, 1998); and (4) claims 16-18 as unpatentable over Merrill, Schonewald,
Beeck, and Morrison. Claim 15 has been cancelled and claims 19 and 20
have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "turbine airfoils, and more
particularly to airfoil heat shields." Spec. para. 1; Figs. 3, 5. Claims 1 and 9
are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A heat shield apparatus for an airfoil, the apparatus
compnsmg:
casing walls configured to be positioned and removable
from a turbomachine casing;
a wall disposed between and integrally formed with the
casing walls, the wall including:
a base layer adjacent the airfoil; and
a thermal layer adjacent the airfoil, wherein the
thermal layer matches a contour of the airfoil; the heat
shield being distinct from and configured to be
removably mounted to the airfoil.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8
Independent claim 1 calls for a heat shield apparatus having "casing
walls configured to be positioned and removable from a turbomachine
casing." Appeal Br. 11, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Schonewald
teaches several of the limitations of claim 1 including the aforementioned
2
Appeal2014-008956
Application 12/615,674
"casing walls." Final Act. 5---6; see also Ans. 2. In support of this rejection,
the Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 3 of Schonewald,
reproduced below, in which the Examiner points to several alleged structural
features of the Schonewald apparatus including the claimed casing walls.
Ans. 3.
tH_ i~·~--~Al>,.1~'":f'\1't"io.'!l> Mt >.i'Vl < '"°"'-', l l <:,;;;
casing
··~ -
f"""''""~~"·'"""·'·"""""·'·'·"t
' airfoil iii
I. ~·""'"''"'"""'"""'"" .. ,,,.,.,.,."'!: ··.·.·.·.:·:-:-:-,~··.:.;.:.:·:->~':··:.:-:·:·:·>>>>·······'.·'.•'•:.'
Appellants contest the Examiner's rendition of the Schonewald
device. In particular, Appellants cite error in the Examiner's identification
of the alleged casing walls, stating
[Schonewald] lacks casing walls configured to be positioned and
removable from a turbomachine casing. The Examiner points to
surfaces of fairing strut 50 that are considered analogous to the
casing walls. The Examiner is actually pointing to the
turbomachine casing. Schonewald et al. does not include casing
walls that are removable from a turbomachine casing. The
3
Appeal2014-008956
Application 12/615,674
turbomachine casing cannot be removable from itself
Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants' argument is persuasive. The Examiner points to portions
of the fairing strut 50 that define a portion of the turbomachine casing as
corresponding to the claimed casing walls. However, Appellants' casing
walls are recited as being removable from the turbomachine casing. As
Appellants correctly note, the turbomachine casing portion of fairing 36 of
Schonewald cannot be removable from itself. See Appeal Br. 6. Since the
Examiner identifies no structure in the Schonewald device that equates to
"casing walls" configured to be positioned and removable from a
turbomachine casing, Schonewald falls short of satisfying this express
limitation of claim 1.
Merrill fails to cure this deficiency in Schonewald. In particular, the
Examiner relies on Merrill for teaching a thermal barrier coating (TBC) that
is removable from an airfoil. See Ans. 13. However, disclosure of a
removable airfoil TBC does not overcome Schonewald' s lack of casing
walls configured to be positioned and removable from a turbomachine
casmg.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2, 7, and
8 as unpatentable over Schonewald and Merrill.
Claims 3-6
The Examiner relies on Morrison for teaching certain limitations of
dependent claims 3---6. However, Morrison fails to remedy the deficiencies
of Schonewald and Merrill described above with respect to independent
4
Appeal2014-008956
Application 12/615,674
claim 1. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3---6 as unpatentable over Schonewald,
Merrill, and Morrison.
Claims 9-14
Independent claim 9 defines an airfoil heat shield having "casing
walls configured to be positioned and removable from a turbomachine
casing." Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. As noted above, the combination of
Schonewald and Merrill fails to disclose this feature. Further, Beeck is not
relied upon to cure this deficiency in Schonewald and Merrill. Therefore,
for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-14 as unpatentable over Schonewald,
Merrill, and Morrison.
Claims 16--18
Claims 16-18 directly or indirectly depend from independent claim 9.
As discussed above, whether considered separately or in combination,
Merrill, Schonewald, Beeck, and Morrison fail to disclose an airfoil heat
shield having casing walls configured to be positioned and removable from a
turbomachine casing. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 16-18 as unpatentable over Merrill, Schonewald, Beeck,
and Morrison.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 and
16-18.
REVERSED
5