Ex Parte Spangler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201311679958 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/679,958 02/28/2007 Brandon W. Spangler 67097-763PUS1;0003746 4429 54549 7590 09/27/2013 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRANDON W. SPANGLER, CORNEIL S. PAAUWE, and DOMINIC J. MONGILLO ____________________ Appeal 2011-011935 Application 11/679,958 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011935 Application 11/679,958 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Brandon W. Spangler et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12-16, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sandy (US 4,573,866, iss. Mar. 4, 1986) and Stec (US 6,171,058 B1, iss. Jan. 9, 2001) and rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12-16, and 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Worley (US 5,609,469, iss. Mar. 11, 1997) and Stec. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A featherseal for engagement with a turbine engine component comprising: a featherseal having a linear longitudinal side opposite to and parallel to a tab side which define[s] a longitudinal axis therebetween, said featherseal having a first lateral tab which extends from said tab side transverse to said longitudinal axis and a second lateral tab which extends from said tab side transverse to said longitudinal axis, said first lateral tab spaced from said second lateral tab. OPINION Obviousness based on Sandy and Stec Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12-16, and 20-22 as a group. App. Br. 3-8. Thus, we select claim 1 as representative of the group and decide the appeal of this rejection with respect to the group on the basis of claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2011-011935 Application 11/679,958 3 The issue raised in this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in determining it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandy’s sealed shroud assembly by providing the feather seal 130 with tabs along one side thereof that engage an associated slot post on the tip shroud member 60 as taught by Stec “for the purpose of self retaining the feather seal axially within the slot.” Ans. 6; see Stec, col. 4, ll. 1-4 (teaching that the side notch and side tab effect axial self retention of the damper 28), ll. 39-41 (disclosing that the side tab 36 axially abuts the rib 46 for axially retaining the damper on this side). Appellants argue that by referring to Bowers (US 3,752,598, iss. Aug. 14, 1973), which Appellants assert teaches away from the proposed modification, for additional detail regarding feather seals, Sandy teaches away from the modification proposed by the Examiner. App. Br. 5. Appellants’ argument is not convincing. First, as pointed out by the Examiner, “Sandy merely mentions Bowers as ‘a type of’ seal.” Ans. 9. Sandy does not explicitly specify this particular seal as part of the disclosed invention. Moreover, even assuming Sandy’s reference to Bower’s type of seal effectively incorporates the particular plate 50 and groove 44 arrangement disclosed by Bowers to prevent the plate from falling out of the grooves1, Bowers does not disparage other, different solutions to that problem, and thus does not teach away from the solution taught by Stec. Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 1 See Bowers, figs. 2-6; col. 4, ll. 46-49. Appeal 2011-011935 Application 11/679,958 4 Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner has improperly picked and chosen the features to apply in the modification of Sandy. App. Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants urge that Stec “does not teach a featherseal with a ‘tab side,’ in isolation.” App. Br. 7. Rather, according to Appellants, Stec discloses that “the notches on each side of its featherseals ‘collectively’ allow for axial retention.” Id. Appellants assert that if one were to combine the teachings of Stec with Sandy, one would need to import both the side notch 34 and the cooperating side tab 36, and doing so would not result in a featherseal as claimed having a “linear longitudinal side.” Id. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning set forth on page 10 of the Answer in responding to this argument. Stec teaches that providing both the side notch 34 and the side tab 36 achieves self retention of the damper to prevent the inadvertent liberation of the damper under centrifugal force. Col. 4, ll. 1-5. However, Stec also teaches that the side tab 36 axially abuts the rib 46 for axially retaining the damper on the pressure side of the damper. Col. 4, ll. 39-41. This evidences that the side tab on the pressure side independently performs an axial retention function. When the side tab on the pressure side is combined with the side notch 34 on the suction side of the damper to complement the convex bulge 30 for providing axial retention along the suction side of the damper, “the damper is axially self retained on both sides in two correspondingly different manners within the limited pocket.” Col. 4, ll. 36-43. Conversely, provision of only the side tab 36, without the notch 34 on the other side, as proposed by the Examiner, will cause the damper to be self retained on one side in one manner within the limited pocket, and thus would improve Sandy in this Appeal 2011-011935 Application 11/679,958 5 same manner. The Examiner’s proposed modification therefore has rational underpinnings. Appellants also argue that there is no legally sufficient reason to modify Sandy as proposed by the Examiner. App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue that because Sandy includes neither a post nor spaced apart tabs, “one could not add both of these features to Sandy without the use of hindsight,” especially in light of the teaching away by Bowers and Stec’s teaching to contour both sides of the damper. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants’ argument is not convincing. As emphasized by the Examiner, the rejection proposes modification of Sandy by providing tabs on the feather seal and providing associated posts on the tip shroud member to achieve the axial retention function of the seal within the seal pocket, as taught by Stec. Ans. 11. For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandy’s sealed shroud assembly by providing the feather seal 130 with tabs along one side thereof that engage an associated slot post on the tip shroud member 60 as taught by Stec to self retain the feather seal axially within the slot. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 3, 4, 10, 12-16, and 20-22, which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Sandy and Stec. Obviousness based on Worley and Stec Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12-16, and 20-24 as a group in contesting this rejection. App. Br. 8. Thus, we select claim 1 as representative of the group and decide the appeal of this rejection with respect to the group on the basis of claim 1 alone. Appeal 2011-011935 Application 11/679,958 6 In contesting this rejection, Appellants incorporate the same arguments asserted against the combination of Sandy and Stec. See App. Br. 8. For all of the reasons discussed above, these arguments fail to apprise us of error on the part of the Examiner. We note, additionally, that Appellants’ teaching away argument does not appear to be germane to the rejection based on Worley and Stec, because Bowers is not cited in Worley. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 3, 4, 10, 12-16, and 20-24, which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Worley and Stec. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12-16, and 20-24 is affirmed. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation