GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021004732 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 13/679,093 11/16/2012 JOSEPH CAPOZZI 260601-US-1/152021-US 3298 75248 7590 03/30/2022 FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 2100 CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406 EXAMINER PRAGER, JESSE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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 JOSEPH CAPOZZI, DAVID VICKERY PARKER, and JEFFREY CARNES Appeal 2021-004732 Application 13/679,093 Technology Center 3700 Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, 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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, and 21, the only claims presently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-004732 Application 13/679,093 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “shrouds within gas turbine engines which are utilized with pivoting vanes.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A contoured stator shroud vane assembly in a gas turbine engine having an inlet end, an outlet end and a plurality of propulsor components, comprising: a compressor stator shroud having a generally circular cross-section and frusto-conical shape; said shroud having a forward end, an aft end and a surface extending between said first end and said second end; said shroud having a plurality of pivots disposed circumferentially about said surface of said shroud which form circular pockets to support a trunnion of a vane; a plurality of vanes extending radially outwardly from said shroud, said plurality of vanes disposed circumferentially about said surface of said shroud and seated in respective pivots, each vane having a leading edge and a trailing edge and opposed surfaces extending between the leading and trailing edges, each vane also having a button seated within a respective pivot and a lower vane edge which forms a vane overhang; said surface having a varying elevation adjacent to and axially aft of said plurality of pivots, with elevation changes extending in a circumferential direction; wherein said surface has a wavy or sinuous surface in a circumferential direction in which uppermost elevations of said surface form peaks and lowermost elevations of said surface form valleys which have an axis extending axially aft of said plurality of pivots beyond trailing edges of said vanes toward said aft end; and wherein the vane overhang and the surface define a clearance therebetween and when in a closed position each of the vanes is near a respective one of the peaks and extends axially aft beyond the vane trailing edge toward said aft end. Appeal 2021-004732 Application 13/679,093 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Caubet US 6,602,049 B2 Aug. 5, 2003 Guemmer US 2008/0310961 A1 Dec. 18, 2008 Domercq US 2011/0110773 A1 May 12, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Final Act. 4. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guemmer and Caubet. Final Act. 5. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guemmer, Caubet, and Domercq. Final Act. 13. OPINION Indefiniteness The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 16, along with the claims dependent therefrom because the claims recite two instances of “a peak” and “an uppermost elevation,” thus rendering the claims unclear as to whether these are the same or different terms. Final Act. 4. Appellant does not address this rejection in the briefing. As such we summarily affirm this rejection. Guemmer and Caubet Both of the Examiner’s rejections rely upon the same combination of Guemmer and Caubet. The Examiner finds that, with respect to claim 1, Guemmer teaches substantially all of the limitations except for the claimed circular pockets and the position of the surface relative to the vane in a Appeal 2021-004732 Application 13/679,093 4 closed position. Final Act. 6. The Examiner also finds that Caubet teaches the claimed circular pockets as well as the vanes being near a respective one of the peaks in the closed position. Id. (citing Caubet Figs. 1-3). The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the contoured stator shroud assembly of Guemmer by providing said shroud having the plurality of pivots form circular pockets to support a trunnion of a vane, each vane also having a button seated within a respective pivot, as taught by Caubert et al., to support the vanes mounted in rotation.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner also concludes that it would have been obvious to provide, when in a closed position, for each of the vanes to be near a respective one of the peaks, to reduce clearance over the range of operation of the vane. Final Act. 7. Appellant argues that Caubet teaches the use of spherical pockets rather than the claimed sinusoidal surface and that the use of such pockets “create discontinuities that disrupt the flow and are undesirable.” Appeal Br. 11. In general, Appellant’s arguments are beyond the scope of the rejection. As the Examiner states, “shaping the shroud and vane edge of Guemmer to be spherical is not being proposed.” Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Caubet teaches circular pockets, which are being incorporated, as well as the fact that “Caubet discloses a closed position outside of the spherical pocket…with non-constant clearances,” while also “disclos[ing] when in a closed position each of the vanes is near a respective one of the peaks (Figs. 2-3, outside of the spherical pocket).” Final Act. 6. These findings specifically address the limitations in the claims for which the Examiner is using Caubet. The Examiner also asserts that the combination “would have suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art positioning and shaping the vane edges of Guemmer to conform to the contouring of Guemmer to reduce Appeal 2021-004732 Application 13/679,093 5 the clearance between the vane edge and the contoured shroud during operation of the vane” as taught in Caubet. Ans. 5. Appellant’s argument against including Caubet’s spherical pockets is, first, not part of the rejection, and, second, does not address the Examiner’s finding regarding the teaching relating to the closed position of the vane in Caubet in combination with Guemmer’s contouring. In the Reply, Appellant shifts from arguing against the inclusion of Caubet’s spherical pockets to asserting that “Caubet’s emphasis on both the center of the sphere as well as the radius of the sphere are critical to achieving Caubet’s expressed goals and purpose, and those features are, of course, inextricably intertwined with what it is to have a spherical shape.” Reply Br. 3. Essentially, Appellant builds on its original argument by asserting that regardless of the Examiner’s proposed combination, one of skill in the art would have, nonetheless, had to import Caubet’s spherical pockets and that for the same reasons originally argued, such a combination would have been undesirable. Appellant again concludes that one of skill in the art would have “adher[ed] sufficiently closely enough to Caubet’s teachings that the noted flow disruptions will necessarily occur and hence dissuade the skilled artisan to abandon such an approach.” Id. We do not find this argument persuasive because it does not adequately address why Caubet’s spherical pockets are “inextricably intertwined” with the relation of the vane edge to the peak in the closed position such that the Examiner’s particular combination is improper. Appellant criticizes the Examiner for not offering any “specific ideas or suggestions as to how an ordinarily-skilled person might effectively transport Caubet’s results to Guemmer’s physical setting,” but this criticism again is in the context of the Examiner supposedly having imported Caubet’s Appeal 2021-004732 Application 13/679,093 6 spherical pockets, which, as noted above, the Examiner expressly states is not being done. Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the specific teachings being imported from Caubet. Nor do Appellant’s arguments adequately explain why the Examiner’s finding regarding the clearance of the vane in the closed position is incorrect nor why such a teaching cannot be separated from the spherical pockets as proposed by the Examiner. In sum, the Examiner is not importing Caubet’s spherical pockets, as argued by Appellant. The Examiner specifically found that Caubet teaches the claimed circular pockets, as well as the limitation regarding the positioning of the vane being at the peak when in the closed position. The Examiner has provided adequate basis for the proposed combination and Appellant’s arguments do not address why the Examiner is incorrect in these findings. Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are sustained. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18 112 Indefiniteness 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, 21 103(a) Guemmer, Caubet 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, 21 21 103(a) Guemmer, Caubet, Domercq 21 Appeal 2021-004732 Application 13/679,093 7 Overall Outcome 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, 21 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) (2013). AFFIRMED