Hoyt Y. Chang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

14917379 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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.
14/917,379 03/08/2016 Hoyt Y. Chang 73200US02;
67097-2604PUS1
4313
54549 7590 08/02/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
DUGER, JASON H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HOYT Y. CHANG
____________

Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,3791
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Nov. 14, 2017, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 United Technologies Corporation is the applicant and is identified as the
real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed May 14, 2018,
hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,379

2

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a liner for a gas turbine engine
combustion chamber.” Spec. para. 2.
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A combustor, comprising:
a liner including a first liner wall and a second liner wall
spaced apart from the first liner wall, the first and second liner
walls defining a combustion chamber therebetween, an end wall
joining the first and second liner walls at a forward end; and
support configured to resiliently support the liner, the
support including a first support wall and a second support
wall spaced apart from the first support wall, the first and
second support walls having a first retainer and a second
retainer, respectively, the first retainer configured to capture an
aft end of the first liner wall and the second retainer configured
to capture an aft end of the second liner wall.

REJECTIONS2
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 12–16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Calvez et al. (US 6,675,585 B2,
iss. Jan. 13, 2004, hereinafter “Calvez ‘585”).
II. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 7–13, and 15–19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wiebe (US 4,380,896, iss.
Apr. 26, 1983).

2 The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite has
been withdrawn by the Examiner. See Advisory Action, dated March 7,
2018.
Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,379

3

III. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Calvez ‘585 and Aumont et al. (US
7,234,306 B2, iss. June 26, 2007, hereinafter “Aumont”).
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Calvez ‘585 and Calvez et al. (US
6,647,729 B2, iss. Nov. 18, 2003, hereinafter “Calvez ‘729”).
V. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Calvez ‘585 and Blanchard et al. (US
8,336,317 B2, iss. Dec. 25, 2012, hereinafter “Blanchard”).
VI. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 12, 13, and 15–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wiebe.
VII. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Wiebe and Aumont.
VIII. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wiebe and Sterman et al. (US
3,956,066, iss. June 22, 1976, hereinafter “Sterman”).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Each of independent claims 1 and 12 requires, inter alia, first and
second retainers “configured to capture” aft ends of first and second liner
walls, respectively. See Appeal Br. 9, 11 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds Calvez ’585 discloses first and second retainers
58, 60 “configured to capture” aft ends of first and second liner walls 88, 90,
respectively. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Calvez ’585, col. 3, l. 55 through col. 4,
l. 14); see also Calvez ’585, Fig. 1. According to the Examiner, “a retainer
Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,379

4

has been construed as configured to capture an aft end of a liner wall as
claimed when configured to keep the aft end of the liner wall within
boundaries.” Final Act. 14.
Appellant argues that tabs 58, 60 of Calvez ’585 “are not configured
to retain the aft end of the liner wall within any boundaries, since they are
simply tabs that interconnect the liner 78a, 78b and walls 26, 28” via “ends
70, 72 of the tabs” and “fixing means 74, 76.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Calvez
’585, Figs. 1, 2) (emphasis added). According to Appellant, if tabs 58, 60 of
Calvez ’585 “could keep the liner 78a, 78b and walls 26, 28 in a position . . .
there would be no need for the fixing means 74, 76.” Id. at 5–6.
The Examiner responds that “the claim language does not prohibit
other elements from assisting the claimed retainers in the capturing of the aft
ends,” such as a bolt that “can be considered configured to capture an article
despite the fact that it may require a separate element,” i.e., a nut.
Examiner’s Answer (dated Sept. 11, 2018, hereinafter “Ans.”) 2–3. The
Examiner asserts that because “Appellant has not provided an alternative
definition or suggestion for construing ‘configured to capture’” and Calvez
’585 discloses that “combustion chamber 24 is held securely in position
within its shell by a plurality of flexible tabs 58, 60” (Calvez ’585, col. 3, ll.
32–34), each of ends 70, 72 of fixing tabs 58, 60 “captures” aft ends 88, 90
of liner walls 26, 28, respectively, because each of tabs 58 and 60
“sandwiches” 3 aft ends 88 and 90 between itself and walls 78a, 78b,

3 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “sandwich” is “[t]o insert
(one thing) tightly between two other things often of differing character or
quality.” See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sandwich (last visited July
23, 2019).
Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,379

5

respectively. Id. at 3–4. As “the retainers need not be the only element
facilitating capture of the aft ends,” according to the Examiner, “Appellant
has not articulated how the fact that fixing means [74, 76] assists tabs [58,
60] in capturing walls [26, 28] and respective ends [88, 90] . . . would result
in the claim not being met.” Id. at 4–5.
We appreciate that Appellant’s Specification does not assign or
suggest a particular definition to the claim term “capture.” Therefore, it is
appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for
guidance in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim
term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Comaper Corp.
v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, an ordinary and
customary meaning of the term “capture” is “to attract and hold.”4 Such an
interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s Specification and Drawings,
which describe and illustrate retainers 124a, 124b as “hooks,” which can be
seen in Appellant’s Figure 2 as engaging and holding (retaining) sloped
edges 116 of liner walls 104a, 104b, respectively. See Spec., para. 50, Figs.
2, 3; see also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Claim language should be read in light of the Specification, as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.). As such, in light of
Appellant’s Specification and Drawings and the plain and ordinary meaning
of the term “capture,” as it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill
in the art, we find that the Examiner’s construction of the term “capture” is
unreasonably broad, and we construe “capture” to mean “to attract and
hold.”

4 See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/capture (last visited July 23, 2019).
Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,379

6

Furthermore, even though we appreciate the Examiner’s position that
other elements may assist the claimed retainers in capturing the aft ends,
nonetheless, each of independent claims 1 and 12 limits the claimed
retainers to being configured, that is, made or constructed, to “capture,” i.e.,
to “attract and hold,” and, thereby, retain the aft ends of first and second
liner walls. See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (The
phrase “configured to” is generally used to mean “made to” or “constructed
to” perform the claimed function.). Here, fixing means 74, 76 of Calvez
’585 are employed for holding together tabs 58, 60, liner walls 26, 28, and
walls 78a, 78b. As such, just because tabs 58, 60 of Calvez ’585 “sandwich”
aft ends 88, 90 between themselves and walls 78a, 78b, respectively, and
function to aid in supporting aft ends 88, 90 of liner walls 26, 28 (once held
together via fixing means 74, 76), it does not mean that tabs 58, 60 are
“configured to capture,” i.e., made or constructed “to attract and hold,” aft
ends 88, 90 of liner walls 26, 28. Without the use of fixing means 74, 76,
tabs 58, 60 of Calvez ‘585 do not “attract and hold,” i.e., “capture,” aft ends
88 and 90 of liner walls 26, 28, but merely position (sandwiching) aft ends
88, 90 of liner walls 26, 28 between themselves and walls 78a, 78b,
respectively. Therefore, tabs 58, 60 of Calvez ‘585 are not “configured to
capture” aft ends 88, 90 of liner walls 26, 28, respectively, as called for by
independent claims 1 and 12.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of independent claims 1 and 12, and their
respective dependent claims 2 and 13–16, as anticipated by Calvez ’585.

Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,379

7

Rejection II
Each of independent claims 1 and 12 requires, inter alia, first and
second retainers “configured to capture” aft ends of first and second liner
walls, respectively. See Appeal Br. 9, 11 (Claims App.). In a similar
manner, independent claim 18 recites “capturing an aft end of the first liner
wall and an aft end of the second liner wall in the first and second retainers,
respectively.” Id. at 12.
The Examiner finds Wiebe discloses first and second retainers 35, 45
“configured to capture” (as per claims 1 and 12) or “capturing” (as per claim
18) aft ends of first and second liner walls 50, 60 at 53, 63, respectively.
Final Act. 4–5, 10 (citing Wiebe, col. 3, ll. 25–68); see also Wiebe, Fig. 3.
Appellant argues that “neither of the retaining clips 35, 45 capture any
ends of any liner walls.” Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, “retaining
clip 35 simply curves away from the axial flange 32 and abuts the liner
segment 30,” whereas “retaining clip 45 comprises z-shaped spacers 46
which are fixedly attached to the cylindrical ring 47 and wall 42 and
likewise simply abut the tab 63 of the liner segment 60.” Id (citing Wiebe,
col. 2, ll. 55–60, col. 3, ll. 11–14, Fig. 3) (emphasis added).
The Examiner responds that “[r]etaining clip 35 captures aft end 53 of
liner 50” as “clip 35 abuts the inner face of end 53 such that end 53 is
sandwiched between clip 35 and flange 32, thereby restraining the
movement of liner 50.” Ans. 7 (citing Wiebe, col. 2, ll. 58–60, Fig. 3, Final
Act. 15) (emphasis added). The Examiner notes that Wiebe specifically
states that “‘retaining clip 35 prevents excessive vertical movement of the aft
liner segment 50.’” Id (citing Wiebe, col. 3, ll. 32–40). With respect to
retaining clip 45, the Examiner contends that it “captures aft end of liner 60
Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,379

8

for like reasons.” Id (citing Wiebe, col. 3, ll. 6–11). Thus, according to the
Examiner, “retainers 35, 45 are configured to keep the aft ends within
boundaries in accordance with the plain meaning of ‘capture’.” Id.
As discussed supra in Rejection I, we find that the Examiner’s
construction of the term “capture” and the phrase “configured to capture” is
unreasonably broad. Rather, for the reasons set forth above in Rejection I,
we construe the term “capture” to mean “to attract and hold” and the phrase
“configured to capture” to mean made or constructed “to attract and hold.”
We appreciate that Wiebe’s retaining clip 35 “prevents excessive
vertical movement of the aft liner segment 50” and retaining clip 45 “serves
to retain the ceramic liner segments.” Wiebe, col. 3, ll. 9–10, 38–40.
However, Wiebe further discloses that the outward side of retaining clip 35
“slidably mates” with the inward side of tab 53 of liner segment 50. Id., col.
3, ll. 34–37. In a similar manner, Wiebe discloses that the outward side of
ring 47 of retaining clip 45 “slidably mates” with the inward side of tab 63
of liner segment 60. Id., col. 3, ll. 56–58. Hence, because Wiebe’s retaining
clips 35, 45 “slidably mate” with the aft ends of liner walls 50, 60,
respectively, retaining clips 35, 45 are not made or constructed “to attract
and hold” liner walls 50, 60. Therefore, Wiebe’s retaining clips 35, 45 are
not “configured to capture” the aft ends of liner walls 50, 60, as called for by
independent claims 1 and 12. Likewise, for the same reasons, Wiebe’s
retaining clips 35, 45 do not “capture” the aft ends of liner walls 50, 60, as
called for by independent claim 18.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of independent claims 1, 12, and 18,
Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,379

9

and their respective dependent claims 5, 7–11, 13, 15–17, and 19, as
anticipated by Wiebe.

Rejections III–V
The Examiner’s use of the Aumont, Calvez ’729, and Blanchard
disclosures does not remedy the deficiency of Calvez ’585 discussed supra
in Rejection I. See Final Act. 6–8.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 3, 8, and 9 as unpatentable over
Calvez ’585 and Aumont, of claims 5, 6, and 17 as unpatentable over Calvez
’585 and Calvez ’729, and of claim 11 as unpatentable over Calvez ’585 and
Blanchard.

Rejections VI–VIII
The Examiner’s modification of Wiebe’s combustor and use of the
Aumont and Sterman disclosures do not remedy the deficiency of Wiebe
discussed supra in Rejection II. See Final Act. 9–13.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain
the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 6, 12, 13, and 15–20 as
unpatentable over Wiebe, of claims 2, 3, and 14 as unpatentable over Wiebe
and Aumont, and of claims 4 and 10 as unpatentable over Wiebe and
Sterman.

Appeal 2019-000856
Application 14/917,379

10

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102 and 103 is reversed.

REVERSED