Ex Parte Rulli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

12712639 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121712,639 02/25/2010
27622 7590 07/25/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Global Patent Operation-Aviation
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Samuel Ross Rulli
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.
241055 3115
EXAMINER
JAGODA, AARON H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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):
gpo.mail@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 SAMUEL ROSS RULLI, CHARLES MENDES, and
JOHN ALAN MANTEIGA
Appeal2014-003471
Application 12/712,639
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Samuel Ross Rulli et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to turbine engine high pressure
shrouds. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
Appeal2014-003471
Application 12/712,639
1. A gas turbine engine turbine shroud assembly
compnsmg:
an annular thermal shield circumferentially disposed
around a radially outer surface of an annular shroud support,
the thermal shield including a honeycomb layer attached
to the shroud support along a radially inner side of the
honeycomb layer, and
the thermal shield including a heat shield attached to the
honeycomb layer along a radially outer side of the honeycomb
layer.
Br. 26 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Plemmons '039 us 3,728,039 Apr. 17, 1973
Sweet us 4,832,999 May 23, 1989
Burge us 5,127,794 July 7, 1992
Plemmons '714 us 5,174,714 Dec. 29, 1992
Proctor us 5,562,408 Oct. 8, 1996
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(I) Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Proctor and Plemmons '714. Final Act. 5-7.
(II) Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Proctor, Plemmons '714, and Sweet. Final Act. 7-9.
(III) Claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Proctor, Plemmons '714, and
Plemmons '039. Final Act. 9-12, 14--18.
(IV) Claims 8, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Proctor, Plemmons '714, Plemmons '039, and Sweet.
Final Act. 12-14, 18-21.
2
Appeal2014-003471
Application 12/712,639
(V) Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Proctor, Plemmons '714, Plemmons '039, and Burge.
Final Act. 13, 19--20.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Proctor discloses most of the features
required by claim 1, including a honeycomb layer in a thermal shield, but
does not disclose "a heat shield attached to the honeycomb layer along a
radially outer side of the honeycomb layer." Final Act. 5---6. Nonetheless,
the Examiner finds that Plemmons '714 discloses a heat shield secured to a
face of a honeycomb layer that is attached to a casing of a turbine engine.
Final Act. 6. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to
provide the honeycomb layer of Proctor with a heat shield as taught by
Plemmons '714 "because Plemmons ... teaches the disclosed layered design
in order to provide greater support, thermal protection, and improved fluid
flow properties in conjunction with the honeycomb layer (col. 6, 11. 5-16,
col. 4, 11. 33--47, col. 3, 11. 43-55)." Final Act. 6-7.
Appellants contend that Proctor and Plemmons '714 "teach directly
away from each other," and Proctor "teaches directly away from the rejected
claims." Br. 17. Specifically, Appellants assert that Proctor leaves cells 46
of its honeycomb layer open intentionally in order to induce drag and
boundary layer turbulence to thermally isolate support shroud 28. See Br.
17-24; see also Proctor, col. 2, 11. 18-24, col. 4, 11. 42--49. In this regard,
Appellants state, "the assembly of Proctor is not open to the modification by
the addition of the backing sheet 7 6 of Plemmons because it would defeat
3
Appeal2014-003471
Application 12/712,639
the purpose of the open honeycomb cells in inducing drag and boundary
layer turbulence in the bleed air." Br. 19.
"A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, "a given course of action often has
simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily
obviate motivation to combine." Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d
1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). "The fact that the motivating
benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify
its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings
of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed
against one another." Winner Int'] Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340,
1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board properly found that a person of
skill in the art would have been motivated to pursue the benefit of the
secondary prior art reference even if it meant forgoing the benefits provided
by the primary prior art reference).
Proctor relates to the control of a clearance distance between turbine
rotor blade tips and a stator shroud. See Proctor, col. 1, 11. 3-6. Proctor
states:
An isolation shield is joined to the shroud support radially
above the panels and includes a plurality of open-ended cells
facing radially outwardly in the duct toward the outer casing for
inducing drag in the bleed air flowable axially through the duct
to thermally isolate the shroud support from the bleed air for
controlling the tip clearance.
4
Appeal2014-003471
Application 12/712,639
Proctor, col. 2, 11. 18-24 (emphasis added).
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence or argument that the
Examiner's proposed modification would have resulted in an "inoperable"
isolation shield. Rather, the Examiner's proposed modification to Proctor
allows the isolation shield in Proctor to perform its intended purpose
(thermal isolation), albeit possibly in a somewhat different manner than the
existing thermal shield in Proctor. Further, the Examiner's rationale for
modifying Proctor, "to provide greater support, thermal protection, and
improved fluid flow properties in conjunction with the honeycomb layer"
(Final Act. 7), is supported by rational underpinnings inasmuch as
Plemmons '714 describes component 76 as a "metal backing sheet"
(suggesting that backing sheet 7 6 provides support) with tapered ends that
prevent channel leaks (teaching that backing sheet 76 affects flow). See
Plemmons '714, col. 5, 11. 5-11, col. 6, 11. 5-16. Weighing the benefits, lost
and gained, of the Examiner's proposed modification, we are not persuaded
by Appellants' arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led away from the arrangement recited in claim 1.
Appellants further assert:
There is no evidence or teaching in the cited references
that it is desirable to use the backing sheet 7 6 of Plemmons to
provide greater support, thermal protection, and improved fluid
flow properties in conjunction with the honeycomb layer of
Proctor nor that the backing sheet would provide these benefits
to the honeycomb layer of Proctor.
Br. 19.
"Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success." In
re 0 'Farrell, 853 F.3d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988). "For obviousness under
§ 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success." Id. at 904
5
Appeal2014-003471
Application 12/712,639
(citing In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 897 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Clinton,
527 F.2d 1226, 1228 (CCPA 1976)). As discussed above, the Examiner set
forth reasoning supported by rational underpinnings. Appellants do not
make any persuasive arguments that backing sheet 76 of Plemmons '714
would not provide support to the honeycomb in Proctor or that the flow
characteristics in Proctor's arrangement (such as leakage prevention) would
not be improved in accordance with the Examiner's rationale. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments on this point.
Appellants further assert that the Examiner did not account for
differences between Proctor and Plemmons '714 properly, such as the open-
ended cells in the honeycomb of Proctor and closed cells in the honeycomb
of Plemmons '714, and has relied on improper hindsight in rejecting the
claims. Br. 21. In this regard, Appellants state, "[ t ]he Examiner also failed
to state that the thermal shield and honeycomb of Plemmons (5,174,714) are
on a radially inner surface of the casing." Br. 21; see also Br. 23-24.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments on this point. The
Examiner relies on Plemmons '714 to teach a heat shield secured to the open
face of a honeycomb layer, not for any particular placement of the thermal
shield including the heat shield. Further, as discussed above, the Examiner's
rationale for modifying Proctor to incorporate the heat shield is adequate.
Thus, we do not agree that the Examiner relied on improper hindsight in
rejecting claim 1. Further, although, as pointed out by Appellants, the open
cells in the honeycomb of Proctor may provide certain advantages, the
Examiner's proposed modification to Proctor also provides other
advantages. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages posed by the
Examiner's proposed combination of Proctor and Plemmons '714, we agree
6
Appeal2014-003471
Application 12/712,639
that a person of ordinary skill would have found the Examiner's proposed
combination obvious.
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments, but we find them to
be unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
1, and claims 3 and 4 fall with claim 1.
Rejections (11-V)
Appellants rely on the arguments presented for claim 1 for the
patentability of the remaining claims. See Br. 17. Accordingly, claims 2
and 5-20 fall with claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7