General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 22, 2020

14556315 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2020)

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.
14/556,315 12/01/2014 Giridhar Jothiprasad 275888-US-1
(551-0414US1)
1051
161134 7590 05/22/2020
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
225 S. Meramec Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THUYHANG NGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2020 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):
GRCLegal.mail@ge.com
docket@splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GIRIDHAR JOTHIPRASAD,
RAMAKRISHNA VENKATA MALLINA,
JOHN DAVID STAMPFLI,
RUDOLF KONRAD SELMEIER,
and DAVIDE GIACCHÉ

Appeal 2019-006276
Application 14/556,315
Technology Center 3700

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–17, and 202. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General
Electric Company. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Although claims 4, 18, and 19 also remain pending, these claims are
withdrawn from consideration. Appeal Br., Claims App.; see, e.g., Non-
Final Action mailed Oct. 25, 2018, 1.
Appeal 2019-006276
Application 14/556,315

2
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the “invention relates to a compressor, and
more particularly to an end-wall treatment disposed in a casing and/or a hub
of such compressor.” Spec. ¶ 1. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1
as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A compressor comprising:
a casing;
a hub;
a flow path formed between the casing and the hub;
a plurality of blades positioned in the flow path; and
an end-wall treatment formed in at least one of the casing and
the hub, and facing a tip of each blade among the plurality of blades,
wherein the tip of each blade and the end-wall treatment are
configured to move relative to each other,
wherein the end-wall treatment comprises a first straight recess
portion defining a downstream wall, an upstream wall and an outer
wall disposed between the downstream wall and the upstream wall,
the first straight recess portion extending between the upstream wall
and the downstream wall annularly along a first axis to maintain a
fluid flow straight through the first straight recess portion, and a
plurality of second straight recess portions defining a downstream
wall, an upstream wall and an outer wall disposed between the
downstream wall and the upstream wall, the plurality of second
straight recess portions spaced apart from each other and extending
from the first straight recess portion along a second axis extending
between the upstream wall and the downstream wall, wherein the
second axis is different than the first axis to maintain the fluid flow
straight through the plurality of second straight recess portions,
wherein at least one of the downstrean1 wall of each of the plurality
of second straight recess portions is integrated with the upstream wall
of the first straight recess portion and the upstream wall of each of the
plurality of second straight recess portions is integrated with the
downstream wall of the first straight recess portion.
Appeal 2019-006276
Application 14/556,315

3
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sietz3 and Irie.4
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “the
plurality of second straight recess portions spaced apart from each other and
extending from the first straight recess portion along a second axis
extending between the upstream wall and the downstream wall, wherein the
second axis is different than the first axis to maintain the fluid flow straight
through the plurality of second straight recess portions.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. (emphases added).
According to the Examiner, Sietz discloses the claimed second
straight recess portions. See, e.g., Answer 3–4. Specifically, with reference
to Sietz’s Figure 2, the Examiner relies on the channels 40 between adjacent
vanes 22 to disclose the second straight recessed portions.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because, according to
Appellant, “channels 40 . . . are clearly curved, not straight.” Appeal Br. 6.
We agree. We note that Sietz itself refers to channels 40 as “curved
channels.” See Sietz col. 4, ll. 43–49; col. 5, ll. 4–10.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner states that
claim[] 1 . . . only recites “a plurality of second straight recess
portions” without further clarifying how the second recess portions
are straight, such as having a straight wall or flow path. Therefore,
the further view in Fig[ure] 3 of Seitz shows that same channels 40
satisfies the limitation “a plurality of second straight recess portions”

3 Seitz, US 7,575,412 B2, issued Aug. 18, 2009.
4 Irie et al., US 6,435,819 B2, issued Aug. 20, 2002 (“Irie”).
Appeal 2019-006276
Application 14/556,315

4
in claim[] 1. Thus Seitz meets the claim limitation of “straight recess
portions.”
Answer 20. This explanation is inadequate to support the rejection. It is not
clear from the cross-sectional view in Sietz’s Figure 3 that the curved
surfaces of channels 40 disclose the claimed straight recess portion. It is
unclear why the Examiner finds that this figure discloses straight channels.
Further, as Appellant points out, claim 1 recites that the plurality of second
straight recess portions extend along a second axis to maintain the fluid flow
straight through the plurality of second straight recess portions. Reply
Br. 3. The above explanation by the Examiner does not support adequately
that Sietz’s channels 40 disclose the claimed straight recess portions that
maintain fluid flow straight through the portions.
Consequently, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Each of
independent claims 15 and 20 includes a similar recitation. Further, each of
remaining claims 2, 3, 5–14, 16, and 17 depends from one of independent
claims 1 and 15. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–17, and 20.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–3,
5–17, and 20.

Appeal 2019-006276
Application 14/556,315

5
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–
17, 20
103 Seitz, Irie 1–3, 5–17,
20
REVERSED