13336750 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018)

Ex Parte Sarawate et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 2018

13336750 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/336,750 12/23/2011 6147 7590 09/18/2018 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Neelesh Nandkumar Sarawate 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. 252969-1 2836 EXAMINER NEUBAUER,THOMASL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2018 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): haeckl@ge.com 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 NEELESH NANDKUMAR SARA WATE, DAVID WAYNE WEBER, OMPRAKASH SAMUDRALA, and VICTOR JOHN MORGAN Appeal2017-010177 Application 13/336,750 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 10, and 11, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal2017-010177 Application 13/336,750 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to cloth seals for turbo- machinery such as gas turbine engines (Spec., para. 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A cloth seal, comprising: a first cloth layer; a second cloth layer; one or more central shims positioned between the first and second cloth layers so as to block a leakage flow path through at least one of the cloth layers, wherein the one or more central shims comprise seals selected from a double bent flange seal comprising side flanges, a pair of bent flange seals comprising side flanges or at least one curved hook flange seal comprising side flanges; a second shim positioned on the opposite side of the first cloth layer from the one or more central shims, the second shim completely covering and sealing the opposite side of the first cloth layer so as to block another leakage flow path through at least one of the cloth layers, wherein the second shim extends to at least one pair of the side flanges; and a third shim positioned on the opposite side of the second cloth layer from one or more central shims, the third shim completely covering and sealing the opposite side of the second cloth layer so as to block another leakage flow path through at least one of the cloth layers, wherein the third shim extends to either the same pair of the side flanges that the second shim extends to or to another pair of the side flanges. THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review 1: 1 The Answer at page 2 does not include the previous rejection made on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting, and this rejection is therefore considered to be withdrawn. 2 Appeal2017-010177 Application 13/336,750 Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Paprotna et al., US 2004/0052637 Al, published Mar. 18, 2004, and Vedantam et al., US 6,652,231 B2, issued Nov. 25, 2003. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 USCÂ§ 103(a) The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art Paprotna fails to disclose the claim limitation requiring a third shim positioned on the opposite side of the second cloth layer from one or more central shims, the third shim completely covering and sealing the opposite side of the second cloth layer so as to block another leakage flow path through at least one of the cloth layers, wherein the third shim extends to either the same pair of the side flanges that the second shim extends to or to another pair of the side flanges. (App. Br. 8, emphasis added). Similar arguments are made in the Reply Brief at pages 1---6. In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is shown by specific citations made to Paprotna (Ans. 2--4, 7, 8). We agree with the Appellants. The rejection of record cites to Paprotna as disclosing the first and second cloth protection layer at 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ( explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal2017-010177 Application 13/336,750 elements 68, 60, abstract, and Figure 4 (Final Act. 3, Ans. 2). The rejection also states that the second and third shims are shown by elements 66 and 68 respectively (Final Act. 4, Ans. 2, 3). The rejection of record also annotates Figure 4 to show "Fabric, woven layers," and lists element 68 as an outer shim. The rejection of record is deficient in that is unclear how the first cloth protection layer is listed as element 68 as well as simultaneously being a third shim (see Answer at page 2). The rejection also includes an annotated version of Figure 4 with annotations to "Fabric, woven layers" with citations to the abstract and Figure 4 itself. However, the abstract and Figure 4 do not specifically state that the specific elements are made from cloth layers as claimed. For these above reasons the rejection of record fails to specifically provide citations for the argued claim limitations. For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claim 10 is not sustained. Claim 11 contains similar limitations and the rejection of this claim is not sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Paprotna and V edantam. 4 Appeal2017-010177 Application 13/336,750 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 10, and 11 is not sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). REVERSED 5