General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2021

2020004748 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2021)

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.
15/280,067 09/29/2016 Neelesh Nandkumar Sarawate 286142-US-1/GECV-1929 6876
122218 7590 04/29/2021
Dority & Manning, P.A. and GEC-Aviation
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
BROWN, ADAM WAYNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2021 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):
oc.prosecution@ge.com
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEELESH NANDKUMAR SARAWATE,
VENKAT SUBRAMANIAM VENKATARAMANI,
ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER MARIN,
STEPHEN FRANCIS BANCHERI,
LARRY STEVEN ROSENZWEIG, and
EDIP SEVINCER
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, 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 1–14 and 16–19. 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(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

2
We AFFIRM IN PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a sealing component for a turbine system.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A turbine system comprising:
a sealing component positioned in a gap between
adjacent turbine components comprising a ceramic matrix
composite, wherein the sealing component comprises a metallic
shim comprising a high-temperature-resistant alloy in a single
crystal form oriented in <001> crystal direction.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Piearcey US 3,494,709 Feb. 10, 1970
Paprotna US 6,733,234 B2 May 11, 2004
Zimmerman US 2010/0304037 A1 Dec. 2, 2010
Schiavo US 8,096,758 B2 Jan. 17, 2012
Cetel US 10,012,099 B2 July 3, 2018
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–7, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cetel in view of Schiavo and Piearcey.
Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 1–7, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 1032 as being unpatentable over Schiavo in view of Piearcey. Final Act. 5.

2 The Final Action states in the heading of this rejection that these claims are
“rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated” by Schiavo in
view of Piearcey. Final Act. 5. However, it is evident that the rejection is
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

3
3. Claims 8–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schiavo in view of Piearcey and Zimmerman. Final Act.
7.
4. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1033 as being
unpatentable over Schiavo in view of Piearcey and Paprotna. Final Act. 8.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Cetel in view of Schiavo and Piearcey
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 13, 14, 18, and 19 as being
unpatentable over Cetel in view of Schiavo and Piearcey. Final Act. 3. As
to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cetel discloses a turbine
system substantially as claimed, including “a sealing component (400)
positioned in a gap between adjacent turbine components (Fig. 2), wherein
the sealing component comprises a metallic shim (400) comprising a high-
temperature-resistant alloy in a single crystal form (abstract).” Final Act. 3
(citing Cetel Abstr.; Fig. 2).
The Examiner concedes that Cetel “fails to teach that the turbine
components comprise a ceramic matrix composite or that the single crystal
material shim has a crystal orientation of <001>.” Final Act. 3. The

actually under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination
of references cited. Final Act. 5. Indeed, the Examiner’s Answer clarifies
that “[t]he reference to 35 USC 102(a)(2) in para. 18 (and para. 34 with
regards to the rejection of claims 16 and 17) is a typographical error.” Ans.
10.
3 Again, the Final Action erroneously states that these claims are “rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated” by Schiavo in view of
Piearcey and Paprotna, whereas it is evident that the rejection is actually
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
references cited. Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 10.
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

4
Examiner finds that “Schiavo teaches that CMC [ceramic matrix composite]
is one of many material[s] suitable for gas turbine structures which are
exposed to the hot gas path,” and concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill to “construct the shroud segments of Cetel from
CMC . . . to achieve a predictable result (a shroud segment constructed of a
turbine-suitable material).” Final Act. 3 (citing Schiavo, col. 3, ll. 1–14).
The Examiner also relies on Piearcey for disclosing a turbine
component “formed from a single crystal alloy with a crystal orientation of
<001>,” and for teaching that “using a <001> crystal orientation for a single
crystal component produces a material with superior strength and resistance
to thermal shock . . . which are critical in the design of a turbine
component.” Final Act. 3 (citing Piearcey, col. 1, ll. 46–56; col. 6, ll. 69–
col. 7, ll. 8; col. 9, ll. 58–69). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill “to modify the shim of Cetel by using
an alloy with not only a single crystal construction (as taught by Cetel), but
also with a crystal orientation of <001> as taught by Piearcey for the
purpose of improving the desirable properties of strength and resistance to
thermal shock.” Final Act. 3–4 (citing Piearcey, col. 9, ll. 58–69).
The Appellant argues all of the claims together, and relies on
dependency on claim 1 for patentability of claims 2–7, 13, 18, and 19.
Appeal Br. 18. Thus, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Because we find the Appellant’s arguments
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and the remaining dependent claims fall with claim 1.
The Appellant argues that “Cetel does not teach a sealing component
as claimed, and instead teaches the use of a seal 202 that interfaces between
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

5
a first component and second component of a gas turbine engine.” Appeal
Br. 16 (citing Cetel, Abst.). However, this argument is unpersuasive
because Cetel clearly discloses a seal made of a single crystal material that
provides sealing between two components of gas turbine engine. See Cetel,
Abst.; col. 4, ll. 25 (“The system 200 is shown as including a seal 202 that
bridges/interfaces a first component 212 and a second component 222.”);
Fig. 2. It is not apparent, nor does the Appellant explain, how the seal of
Cetel that is positioned between a first component and a second component
of a gas turbine engine so as to bridge or interface with these components,
differs from the recited sealing component of claim 1.
The Appellant also argues that Cetel merely discloses a single crystal
having <100> or <111> orientation, and “not <001> crystal direction.”
Appeal Br. 17. However, as the Examiner points out, “it is Piearcey that is
cited as teaching the <001> orientation for the single crystal.” Ans. 11; see
also Piearcey Abst.; col. 6, ll. 69–col. 7, ll. 8.
The Appellant further argues that neither Schiavo nor Piearcey
discloses “a sealing component that comprises a metallic shim that
comprises a high-temperature-resistant alloy in a single crystal form oriented
in <001> crystal direction,” and that “Piearcey does not contemplate a
sealing component formed of a single crystal alloy with a crystal orientation
of <001>.” Appeal Br. 17. However, as the Examiner points out, the
rejection relies on Cetel for disclosing a seal. Ans. 12. As also noted,
Piearcey is cited for disclosing the <001> orientation of a single crystal
alloy. Id. The Appellant essential argues that each of the cited prior art fails
to anticipate claim 1, whereas the rejection is based on obviousness over the
combination of Cetel, Schiavo, and Piearcey. “Non-obviousness cannot be
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

6
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981)(“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.”).
The Appellant also argues that there is no motivation to combine the
references in the manner suggested and that the rejection is based on
hindsight because “Piearcey does not indicate that a crystal orientation of
<001> would improve thermal fatigue or natural frequency as desired by
Cetel,” or “explain how using a crystal orientation of <001> as a seal instead
of a blade or vane would affect properties of the material.” Appeal Br. 18.
However, as the Examiner correctly points out, Cetel teaches that the
“‘orientation of the single crystal may be selected dependent on the
application environment in which the seal is to be incorporated,’” and
Piearcey “teaches that using a <001> orientation provides a material with
superior strength, superior rupture life, and superior operation under
conditions of thermal shock.” Ans. 11–12 (quoting Cetel, col. 4, ll. 63–66;
citing Piearcey, col. 9, ll. 58–69). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that:
One of ordinary skill, upon reading Cetel would understand that
crystal orientation may be varied in order to influence a
materials mechanical properties in order to provide a material
better suited for a seal’s intended environment. And upon
reading the teachings of Piearcey, one of ordinary skill would
understand that the <001> orientation results in several superior
properties useful in a gas turbine engine (which is the intended
environment of the seal of Cetel).
Ans. 12. In the above regard, as the Examiner further explains:
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

7
both references discuss varying the crystal orientation in order
to affect the material properties, i.e. the properties of the raw
material from which these components are fabricated. Neither
reference discusses the geometry of the blade/vane or seal
providing these superior properties, only the grain structure of
the material.
Ans. 12.
Therefore, in view of the above, we are unpersuaded by the
Appellant’s arguments, and affirm the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–7, 13,
14, 18, and 19 that depend from claim 1 fall with claim 1.

Rejection 2: Schiavo in view of Piearcey
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 13, 14, 18, and 19 as being
unpatentable over Schiavo in view of Piearcey, finding that Schiavo teaches
a turbine system substantially as claimed, including “a sealing component
(including 54/56) positioned in a gap between adjacent turbine components
(Fig. 4), wherein the sealing component comprises a metallic shim (54/56)
comprising a high-temperature-resistant alloy in a single crystal form.”
Final Act. 5 (citing Schiavo, col. 3, ll. 1–14). The Examiner concedes that
Schiavo “fails to teach that the turbine components comprise a ceramic
matrix composite or that the single crystal material shim has a crystal
orientation of <001>.” Final Act. 5.
The Examiner relies on Schiavo’s teaching that CMC is a suitable
material for “turbine structures which are exposed to the hot gas path of
working fluid,” and on Piearcey for disclosing the benefits of a turbine
component “formed from a single crystal alloy with a crystal orientation of
<001>,” to conclude that the invention of claim 1 would have been obvious
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

8
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Schiavo, col. 3, ll.
1–14; Piearcey, col. 1, ll. 46–56; col. 6, ll. 69–col. 7, ll. 8; col. 9, ll. 58–69).
The Appellant argues all of the claims together, initially arguing that
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on Schiavo in view of Piearcey
is improper. Appeal Br. 9–14. However, as noted above, the Examiner’s
reference to anticipation and § 102 was a typographical error. Hence, the
Appellant’s arguments are moot, except to the extent that the disclosures of
Schiavo and Piearcey are at issue in the obviousness rejection, which we
discuss infra.
As noted above, the Examiner finds that inserts 54 and 56 of Schiavo
are sealing components. Final Act. 5. The Appellant disagrees with this
finding, arguing that “the inserts 54-56 are not sealing components, far less
the sealing component claimed.” Appeal Br. 13; see also Appeal Br. 19. In
that regard, the Appellant argues that “Schiavo teaches that inserts 54-56
include working gas faces 55, 57 that one skilled in the art would understand
prevents the inserts from being a sealing component.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing
Schiavo, col. 2, ll. 25–49; see also Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 2. The
Appellant further argues that contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Schiavo
“teaches a sealing component 53,” which establishes that “one at least
skilled in the art recognized what a sealing component was, and identified
numeral 53 as the sealing component.” Appeal Br. 13; see also Appeal Br.
19. We ultimately find the Appellant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not apparent how inserts 54 and 56 of Schiavo function as a
“seal” to prevent passage of fluid between structures, or how the inserts can
be said to be “positioned in a gap between adjacent turbine components” as
recited in claim 1. The Examiner responds that because inserts 54 and 56
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

9
function to channel the hot gas flow, they “block the hot gas flow from
passing beyond them (i.e. seal against the hot gas flow),” and thus, “provide
a seal between adjacent components.” Ans. 10–11. However, such
interpretation of “sealing component” can be satisfied by any solid structure
obstructing the flow path of hot gas, for example, the airfoil 22 of Schiavo.
See e.g., Schiavo, Figs. 1, 4, 6. We do not agree that sufficient evidentiary
basis has been established demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand the recited “sealing component” in view of the
Specification to encompass any such structures that block the hot gas, and
find the Examiner’s implicit interpretation to be unreasonably broad. In
addition, it is not entirely clear what gap between components the inserts 54
and 56 would be sealing. Reply Br. 2 (“if numerals 55 and 57 are faces of
the inserts . . . then the inserts are clearly not positioned in a gap between
adjacent turbine component[s].”). We further agree with the Appellant that
the Examiner’s reliance on inserts 54 and 56 to be seals is problematic
considering the fact that Schiavo clearly discloses a seal 53, but Schiavo
identified the components at issue as inserts.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we reverse this
rejection of claims 1–7, 13, 14, 18, and 19 based on the combination of
Schiavo and Piearcey.

Rejection 3
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 8–12 as being unpatentable
over Schiavo in view of Piearcey and Zimmerman. Final Act. 7. The
Appellant relies on dependency on independent claim 1 for patentability of
claims 8–12. Appeal Br. 20. Because the Examiner’s application of
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

10
Zimmerman fails to remedy the above noted deficiency in the combination
of Schiavo and Piearcey, the rejection of claims 8–12 is also reversed.

Rejection 4
The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 17 that depend from independent
claim 14 as being unpatentable over Schiavo in view of Piearcey and
Paprotna. Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that “Schiavo as modified by
Piearcey teaches the turbine shroud assembly of claim 14 (as set forth
above),” but concedes that Schiavo “fails to teach that the sealing
components comprises a plurality of metallic shims [claim 16] or that the
plurality of metallic shims comprises metallic shims of different superalloys
[claim 17].” Final Act. 9; see also Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that “Paprotna teaches a sealing component comprising a
plurality of shims (abstract) wherein the plurality of shims comprises
different superalloys.” Final Act. 9 (citing Paprotna, col. 3, ll. 4–8, col. 3, l.
55–col. 4, l. 9). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art,
to modify the turbine shroud assembly of Schiavo as modified
by Piearcey by using a seal comprising multiple shims of
different materials as taught by Paprotna for the purpose of
providing additional leakage protection while protecting the
shim components from the turbine environment.
Final Act. 9 (citing Paprotna col. 1, l. 48–col. 2, ll. 13).
Thus, we understand the rejection to be based on modifying the inserts
of Schiavo to comprise multiple shims in view of Paprotna. Hence, this
rejection is again based on an erroneous finding that the inserts of Schiavo
are “sealing components.” Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of claims
16 and 17.
Appeal 2020-004748
Application 15/280,067

11
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part. More specifically,
1. Rejection of claims 1–7, 13, 14, 18, and 19 as being
unpatentable over Cetel in view of Schiavo and Piearcey is affirmed.
2. Rejection of claims 1–7, 13, 14, 18, and 19 as being
unpatentable over Schiavo in view of Piearcey is reversed.
3. Rejection of claims 8–12 as being unpatentable over Schiavo in
view of Piearcey and Zimmerman is reversed.
4. Rejection of claims 16 and 17 as being unpatentable over
Schiavo in view of Piearcey and Paprotna is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 13, 14,
18, 19
103 Cetel, Schiavo,
Piearcey
1–7, 13, 14,
18, 19

1–7, 13, 14,
18, 19
103 Schiavo, Piearcey 1–7, 13, 14,
18, 19
8–12 103 Schiavo, Piearcey,
Zimmerman
8–12
16, 17 103 Schiavo, Piearcey,
Paprotna
16, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 13, 14,
18, 19
8–12, 16, 17
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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 IN PART