13245707 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

Ex Parte Zambetti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 2016

13245707 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/245,707 09/26/2011 117185 7590 03/03/2016 ALSTOM TECHNOLOGY, LTD, C/O Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chiara ZAMBETTI 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. 1033275-000704 7190 EXAMINER EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/03/2016 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): ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHIARA ZAMBETTI, SERGEI RIAZANTSEV, and HELENE SAXER-FELICI Appeal2014-001591 Application 13/245,707 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Chiara Zambetti et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alstom Technology Ltd. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal2014-001591 Application 13/245,707 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' disclosed invention relates to "a blade for a gas turbine." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is the sole independent claim and is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A blade, for a gas turbine, comprising a blade airfoil, having a shroud segment arranged on its upper end, the shroud segment together with shroud segments of other blades of a blade row forming an annular shroud which delimits hot gas passage of the gas turbine, and said shroud segment, on sides on which it adjoins adjacent shroud segments of the annular shroud, is provided with upwardly projecting side rails which extend along a side edge, to improve sealing to the hot gas passage, wherein the side rails comprise rail-parallel or essentially rail-parallel, upwardly open slots through which cooling air, which is introduced via the shroud segment from an interior of the blade airfoil, discharges into the space above the shroud segment. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Beeck US 6,340,284 B 1 Jan.22,2002 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, and 1 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Beeck. II. Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beeck. 2 Appeal2014-001591 Application 13/245,707 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a blade for a gas turbine that includes a shroud segment with "side rails compris[ing] rail-parallel or essentially rail-parallel, upwardly open slots through which cooling air, which is introduced via the shroud segment from an interior of the blade airfoil, discharges into the space above the shroud segment." Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Appellants argue that Beeck does not disclose side rails that comprise upwardly open slots as claimed. See Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-3. We agree. With regard to the above limitation, the Examiner found that Beeck discloses side rails 25 that comprise rail-parallel upwardly open slots 14 for discharging cooling air. Final Act. 3; see id. at 2 (including annotated Fig. 5 of Beeck). Upon careful review ofBeeck's Figure 5, even as reproduced and annotated in the Final Action, we agree with Appellants that the portion of the figure identified by the Examiner as side rail 25 "is positioned next to the recess 14," but does not comprise recess 14. Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added; underlining omitted). In other words, to the extent that Beeck discloses a side rail and an upwardly open slot, the slot is merely adjacent, rather than a part of, the side rail. Although we appreciate that Beeck' s recess 14 is a part of overall shroud band 11, such that the shroud band comprises an upwardly open slot, Beeck's recess 14 is not part of side rail 25, such that the side rail would comprise an upwardly open slot. Thus, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Beeck discloses side rails which comprise rail-parallel upwardly open slots as claimed. 3 Appeal2014-001591 Application 13/245,707 Accordingly, based on the record before us-because an anticipation rejection requires a finding of each and every limitation as set forth in the claims in a single reference-we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and of associated dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, and 17, as anticipated by Beeck. With respect to Rejection II, the Examiner relied on the same erroneous finding from Beeck as discussed supra for Rejection I. The additional findings and reasoning set forth by the Examiner in Rejection II do not cure the above-noted deficiency of Beeck. See Final Act. 5-7. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 16 as being unpatentable over Beeck. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17. REVERSED 4