UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2021

2021001791 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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.
15/102,062 06/06/2016 Andrew G. ALARCON 72758US02 (U420809US2) 8191
135291 7590 10/29/2021
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
WOLCOTT, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW G. ALARCON and WILLIAM BOGUE
Appeal 2021-001791
Application 15/102,062
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, 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 1–10 and 13–20. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001791
Application 15/102,062
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a fan platform edge seal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An edge seal for preventing airflow through a space between
a fan platform and an adjacent airfoil in a gas turbine engine, the
edge seal comprising:
a bonding segment being bondable to the fan platform;
a sealing flap converging with the bonding segment, the
sealing flap being operatively contactable with the adjacent
airfoil, wherein the sealing flap converges with the bonding
segment at a crook so that the sealing flap is bendable with
respect to the bonding segment; and
a bumper rib protruding from the bonding segment
adjacent to an area where the sealing flap converges with the
bonding segment, the bumper rib being bondable to the fan
platform, wherein the crook is located past an end of the fan
platform and between the sealing flap and the bumper rib.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Barton US 6,514,045 B1 Feb. 4, 2003
Tsou US 7,966,808 B2 June 28, 2011
Alarcon US 9,297,268 B2 Mar. 29, 2016
Ravier US 9,869,323 B2 Jan. 16, 2018
Stern & Stern Webpage archive of
www.stemandstem.com retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/2013013104
0537/http://www.stemandstem.com/categ
ory/55/Polyester-Fabric.html
Jul, 19, 2018
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 13–16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Barton, Alarcon, and Ravier. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2021-001791
Application 15/102,062
3
Claims 3, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Barton, Ravier, Alarcon, and Tsou. Final Act. 15.
Claims 4, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Barton, Ravier, Alarcon, Tsou, and Stern & Stern. Final
Act. 17.
OPINION
Appellant repeats the same arguments for each of the independent
claims before us, claims 1, 7, and 15, without drawing any distinctions based
on differences in claim language. Appeal Br. 7–19. Appellant argues the
remaining claims based entirely on dependency. Appeal Br. 11, 15, 20.
The Examiner found Barton discloses the basic structure of the
independent claims but without the structure the Examiner regarded as the
recited “crook” located in the manner specified: “wherein the crook is
located past an end of the fan platform and between the sealing flap and the
bumper rib.” Final Act. 4–6, 7–11, 11–12.
Appellant initially “submits that no ‘crook’ is found in Barton.”
Appeal Br. 7, 12, 16. To meet the “crook” language, the Examiner relies on
an inner radius of curvature in Barton’s seal at which the edge 37 of the
reinforcing arm 38 forms a hinge about which the flange portion 36 of
Barton’s seal can rotate. Final Act. 5 (annotating Barton Fig. 5 and citing
Barton para. 37). Appellant’s argument regarding the alleged absence of
structure reasonably regarded as a “crook” in Barton is not further
developed. Appellant does not apprise us of any express definition in the
Specification, ordinary or customary dictionary definitions precluding the
Examiner’s interpretation, or cite any examples or other evidence to
demonstrate Appellant somehow disavowed the subject matter relied upon
Appeal 2021-001791
Application 15/102,062
4
by the Examiner. It is well-settled that the mere disclosure of a preferred
embodiment (Reply Br. 2) is not, without more, an express definition for
purposes of claim construction, or a clear disavowal of other embodiments.
The Examiner sets forth a definition of “crook” that includes hooked,
curved or bent shapes (Ans. 4 citing www.marriam-webster.com) and the
structure identified by the Examiner would seem to meet that definition.
That Barton’s seal has the ability to hinge at this location further reinforces
the appropriateness of the Examiner’s position because such capability is
often associated with a “crook” like, for example, the crook of one’s arm and
such capability is associated with crook 59 according to Appellant’s
Specification. Spec. para. 37.
Although there are differences between the “crook” illustrated in
Figure 4 of Appellant’s disclosure and that identified by the Examiner in
Figure 5 of Barton, we are not apprised of any claim language expressing
such differences. Our reviewing court has repeatedly “cautioned against
reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in
the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear
disclaimer in the specification.” In re American Academy of Science Tech
Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
The remainder of Appellant’s argument fails for not addressing the
Examiner’s position. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“The arguments shall
explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by
appellant”). Appellant instead addresses a modification to Barton which the
Examiner never proposed. Appellant recognizes the edge 37 of the
reinforcing arm 38 creates a hinge. Appeal Br. 7–8, 12, 17; Reply Br. 4.
Appellant uses this fact as a basis to repeatedly assert that if one were to
“add” a crook in Barton there would be no benefit. Appeal Br. 8, 12, 17;
Appeal 2021-001791
Application 15/102,062
5
Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner, however, has repeatedly
emphasized that “the rejection of record does not suggest adding a crook to
Barton” Final Act. 3, 5–6; Ans. 5–6, 9–10, 12–13. Indeed, the proposed
modification to Barton, in view of Ravier and Alarcon2 is not to “add” a
crook but “moving” the one in Barton relative to the edge of the platform 22.
Id. The Examiner’s proposed modification in this regard involves only the
very simple relocation of Barton’s illustrated platform edge 26, which
interfaces with the seal 30 at adhesive 29, inboard with respect to the
platform 22 (to the right, as viewed in Barton Figure 5), to a position where
the seal-platform interface having adhesive 29 is inboard of the edge 37
defining the crook region. This can be achieved, for example, by simply
modifying the amount of seal material at this interface in relation to the
platform. Indeed, one can see an example of exactly this in Ravier’s figures
where there are significantly larger protective portions 12a, 12a' of the
gasket (“seal”) which put grooves 16, 16' (“crooks”) further outboard
(towards blade 50) of the edges 42a and 42b with respect to the platform 40
in Figures 5 and 9 as compared to the smaller protective portions 12a, 12a'
depicted in Figures 6–8. Ans. 5, 8, 12 (“Ravier teaches the hinge point is
both inside and outside the end of the platform.”). Ravier makes this
adjustment based on the blade shape at the sealing location. Ravier col. 4, l.
23 et seq. (“the gasket 10 is configured to co-operate with the blade 50”).
However, according to the Examiner, there may be a number of possible
reasons why it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to make such a
modification to Barton. Final Act. 5–6. This reasoning articulated by the

2 We regard Alarcon as generally cumulative to the teachings of Ravier with
regard to the subject matter for which the Examiner relies on it regarding
claims 1, 7, 15. See Final Act. 5, 9, 12.
Appeal 2021-001791
Application 15/102,062
6
Examiner in support of the proposed modification stands uncontroverted by
Appellant on the record presently before us.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–8,
13–16, 19,
20
103 Barton, Alarcon,
Ravier
1, 2, 5–8,
13–16, 19,
20

3, 9, 17 103 Barton, Ravier,
Alarcon, Tsou
3, 9, 17
4, 10, 18 103 Barton, Ravier,
Alarcon, Tsou,
Stern & Stern
4, 10, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 13–20
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