Ex Parte Weidmann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

13390304 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/390,304 02/13/2012
23911 7590 10/01/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wilfried Weidmann
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.
Ol 1235.64164US 4518
EXAMINER
BEEBE, JOSHUA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
apomeroy@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILFRIED WEIDMANN 1
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 12 and 14--25. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief indicates that MTU Aero Engines GmbH is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a turbomachine that enables radial
movability of guide blade ring segments. Spec. ,r,r 2, 4. Claim 12,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
12. A turbomachine, comprising:
a housing having a pair of radially inwardly extending
housing components;
a guide blade ring, wherein an outer shroud of the guide
blade ring is divided into segments by respective joints;
a first fastening element including a groove running in a
circumferential direction to receive a first one of the pair of
inwardly extending housing components; and
a second fastening element defined by a second one of the
pair of radially inwardly extending housing components and
including a first slot and/or a first nose which meshes with a
second nose and/or a second slot, respectively, in a component
of the outer shroud that projects radially outwardly;
wherein the component of the outer shroud that projects
radially outwardly engages the first fastening element and the
second fastening element such that the outer shroud is fastened
to the housing by the first fastening element and the second
fastening element;
wherein an axial force is absorbable by the first fastening
element, wherein a circumferential force is absorbable by the
second fastening element, and
wherein a movement in a radial direction for a segment of
the outer shroud is enableable by the first fastening element and
the second fastening element.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Petrie
Vinciguerra
Humhauser
us 2,903,237
us 4,632,634
us 5,601,407
2
Sept. 8, 1959
Dec. 30, 1986
Feb. 11, 1997
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
Rogers
Dube
Coign
Durand
US 2002/0197153 Al
US 2006/0153683 Al
US 7,094,026 B2
US 2007 /0231132 Al
REJECTIONS
Dec. 26, 2002
July 13, 2006
Aug.22,2006
Oct. 4, 2007
(I) Claims 12, 14--21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Rogers, Durand, and Petrie. 2
(II) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Rogers, Durand, Petrie, and Coign.
(III) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Rogers, Durand, Petrie, and Vinciguerra.
(IV) Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Rogers, Durand, Petrie, and Humhauser.
OPINION
Rejection (I)
Claims 12, 14-21, 23, and 24
The Examiner finds Rogers teaches many of the elements recited in
claim 12, including a first fastening element (front outer ring 35 or rear outer
ring 37) and a second fastening element (portion including slot 55). Final
Act. 2--4. However, the Examiner finds that Rogers does not teach that (i)
"there is a groove formed in the first fastening element in a circumferential
direction to receive a first one of the pair of inwardly extending housing
components" or that (ii) "[ t ]he outer shroud radially outward projections are
2 Although not relied upon to disclose any specific claimed structure, the
Examiner refers to Dube as teaching a benefit of reducing excess projecting
material between projections in gas turbine engine components. Final Act.
5.
3
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
a single component that engages the first and second fastening elements."
Final Act. 4.
Regarding the above-noted groove, the Examiner finds that Durand
teaches that ring sector 20 (including frustoconical wall 32) is received in a
groove in vane element 13 and works as an axial location element. Final
Act. 4 (citing Durand ,r,r 31-37, Fig. 2); see also Ans. 4--7. The Examiner
reasons that modifying front outer ring 35 of Rogers to form a single
element with a circumferential groove would reduce complexity by reducing
the number of parts and would more securely axially lock the stator outer air
seal. Id.; see also Ans. 6-7. Thus, instead of providing two separate
elements (front outer ring 35 and rear outer ring 37) that interact with outer
vane platform 23 and outer edge 39, the Examiner's proposed modification
to Rogers provides a single element (including a circumferential groove) that
interacts with outer vane platform 23 and outer edge 39. Ans. 6-7.
As for the recited component that engages first and second fastening
elements, the Examiner relies on Petrie to teach this feature. Final Act. 5
(citing Petrie, 3:57-73). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Petrie
discloses radial dog 52 engaging both notch 53 and upstanding nibs 54. Id.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify lug member 53 3 of Rogers "such that
instead of two components (35, 53), a single outer shroud component such
as component (52 of Petrie) could be used, as taught by Petrie, for the
purpose of reducing excess weight" and simplifying manufacture by
reducing the number of required projections. Id. In support of this
3 Rogers uses reference number 53 to refer to a lug member (see Rogers
,r 21, Fig. 3), whereas Petrie uses reference number 53 to refer to a notch
(see Petrie, 3:59-63, Fig. 4)
4
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
reasoning, the Examiner states, "it is also well-known in the art to reduce
excess weight in any outer shroud by removing any excess projecting
space." Final Act. 5 (referencing Dube ,r 25).
Appellant first argues that the Examiner erred in finding that front
outer ring 35 or rear outer ring 37 of Rogers qualifies as a first fastening
element as recited in claim 12. Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellant, the
Examiner's characterization of these outer rings is incorrect "because neither
the Rogers['] front outer ring 35 nor the Rogers['] rear outer ring 37 includes
'a groove running in a circumferential direction to receive' any component
of the Rogers['] engine casing 43, identified as the 'housing' required by
claim 12." Id.
Appellant's argument on this point is unavailing because the
Examiner acknowledges this deficiency in Rogers and proposes to modify
front outer ring 3 5 of Rogers to include a groove running in a
circumferential direction as recited in claim 12, based on the teachings of
Durand. Final Act. 4. Accordingly, Appellant's argument on this point does
not address the proposed combination of the teachings of Rogers and Durand
and amounts to an attack on Rogers individually.
Next, Appellant asserts the Examiner erred in finding that slot 55 in
Rogers satisfies the requirement in claim 12 for a second fastening element
because claim 12 recites that the second fastening element includes a slot.
Appeal Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant contends, "[the Examiner's]
characterization is ... inappropriate, because the Rogers slot 55, itself, does
not, and the inwardly projecting walls delimiting or defining that slot 55,
themselves, do not, include 'a first slot and/or a first nose' as claim 12
requires." Id.; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
5
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
We disagree with Appellant because, to the extent claim 12 requires a
distinct component including a slot as asserted by Appellant, Rogers
discloses such a component. Specifically, as shown in Figure 1 of Rogers,
the portion of engine casing 43 that engages lug member 53 (and including
slot 55) is different in shape from the remainder of engine casing 43. We
reproduce a portion4 of Figure 1 of Rogers below.
:JD 58 37
'
Figure 1 of Rogers is a partial cross-sectional view through the
stator of a gas turbine engine (Rogers ,r 14), and the portion reproduced
above includes vane segment 19 and lug member 53 and its connection to
4 The portion of Figure 1 of Rogers reproduced below is approximately the
same area from Figure 1 appearing on page 5 of the Final Office Action.
6
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
engine casing 43. Also depicted is a section line (unnumbered) used for
creating Figure 3 of Rogers, which depicts lug member 53 within slot 55.
As is evident from Figure 1 of Rogers, engine casing 43 includes a
projection where lug member 53 engages engine casing 43 via slot 55.
Figure 3 does not show this projection because of where the section line
used to create Figure 3 is located. See Rogers ,r 16 ( explaining the
relationship between Figures 1 and 3). Accordingly, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Rogers discloses a second
fastening element "including a first slot and/or a first nose" as recited in
claim 12.
Appellant next argues that even if the two arguments discussed above
are not persuasive, "the Rogers ... lug members 53 would still fail to form a
component of the outer shroud that projects radially outwardly that 'engages
the first fastening element and the second fastening element' ( emphasis
added) as claim 12 defines." Appeal Br. 5. In this regard, Appellant states,
"[t]he lug members 53 ... do not engage with either the Rogers front outer
ring 35 or the Rogers rear outer ring 37." Id. Therefore, according to
Appellant, Rogers fails to disclose that lug member 53 engages the first
fastening element (in addition to engaging the second fastening element) as
recited in claim 12. Id.
Appellant's argument on this point does not address the Examiner's
proposed modification to Rogers' structure. See Final Act. 5. Specifically,
the Examiner proposes to modify Rogers' projection "to orient in the other
direction as that of Petrie, such that instead of two components (35, 53), a
single outer shroud component such as component (52 of Petrie) could be
used." Id. Accordingly, Appellant's argument is unpersuasive.
7
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
Appellant discusses Petrie from page 5 to page 6 of the Appeal Brief,
concluding the discussion by stating that Petrie:
cannot properly be considered to suggest altering the Rogers
turbine vane support structure so as to include at least a first
fastening element "including a groove running in a
circumferential direction to receive a first one of the pair of
inwardly extending housing components" as lines 5-6 in claim
12 require and that is engaged by the component, purportedly
formed by the Rogers lug member 53, of the outer shroud that
projects radially outwardly, as lines 11-13 in claim 12 define.
Id. at 6. Appellant's statement relates the disclosure of Petrie to the recited
first fastening element. See Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). The Examiner
relies on Rogers, modified based on the teachings of Durand (not Petrie), to
teach the recited first fastening element. Final Act. 3--4. Accordingly,
Appellant's argument relating to Petrie and the first fastening element
recited in claim 12 is unpersuasive.
Appellant discusses Durand from page 6 to page 7 of the Appeal Brief
and contends that Rogers provides a stator stage 1 7 that is mounted between
axially spaced-apart rotor stages 13 and 15, and that the stator stage 1 7
includes stator vane segments 19. Appellant further contends that "[ t ]he
frustoconical wall 32 referred to in lines 1--4 of the last paragraph on page 4
of the final Office Action, while forming part of an enclosure for the Durand
... rotor 18, does not concern guide or stator vanes of the Durand ...
structure." Appeal Br. 7. Appellant concludes that Durand does not suggest
the modification to Rogers set forth in the Final Office Action because front
outer ring 35, rear outer ring 37, and slot 55 of Rogers are all elements of
Rogers's stator stage. Id.
The Examiner explains that Durand was cited for the general teaching
of a fastening element with a circumferential groove for receiving a housing
8
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
component. Id. at 6. Although Appellant argues that Durand does not
suggest the Examiner's proposed modification to the structure of Rogers,
Appellant does not contest persuasively the Examiner's findings of fact
regarding the disclosure of Durand. Appeal Br. 3-9; see also Final Act. 4.
Nor does Appellant assert that the proposed modification would fail to
reduce complexity or provide a more securely retained seal in Rogers as the
Examiner determines on page 4 of the Final Office Action and reiterates on
pages 6 to 7 of the Answer. Id. Accordingly, we are not apprised of
Examiner error by Appellant's contentions.
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments regarding the
rejection of claim 12, but determine the Examiner has the better position.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over
Rogers, Durand, and Petrie. Appellant does not present separate arguments
for dependent claims 14--21, and 23, and 24 apart from the arguments for
independent claim 12. Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 14--21, 23, and 24 for the same reasons discussed above regarding the
rejection of independent claim 12.
Claim 25
Appellant relies on the arguments discussed above regarding the
rejection of claim 12 in support of the patentability of independent claim 2 5.
Appeal Br. 7-8. For the same reasons discussed above, we sustain the
rejection of claim 25 as unpatentable over Rogers, Durand, and Petrie.
Re} ections (II)-(IV)
Claims 15, 20, and 22
Appellant does not present separate arguments for dependent claims
15, 20, and 22 apart from the arguments for independent claim 12. Appeal
9
Appeal2017-010367
Application 13/390,304
Br. 8-9. For the same reasons discussed above regarding Rejection (I), we
sustain Rejections (II}-(IV).
DECISION
(I) The rejection of claims 12, 14--21, and 23-25 as unpatentable
over Rogers, Petrie, and Durand is affirmed.
(II) The rejection of claim 15 as unpatentable over Rogers, Petrie,
Durand, and Coign is affirmed.
(III) The rejection of claim 20 as unpatentable over Rogers, Petrie,
Durand, and Vinciguerra is affirmed.
(IV) The rejection of claim 22 as unpatentable over Rogers, Petrie,
Durand, and Humhauser 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10