Ex Parte Vo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2018

13630019 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/630,019 09/28/2012 Tuan David Vo
54549 7590 06/13/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PA0019478U;67097-2029PUS1 6129
EXAMINER
ADJAGBE, MAXIME M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2018 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 TUAN DAVID VO
and SHELTON 0. DUELM 1
Appeal2017-008467
Application 13/630,019
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1--4, 10-15, and 20. See Appeal Br. 4---6. Claims 5-
9 and 16-19 are allowed. Final Act. 9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest
and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. See Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008467
Application 13/630,019
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A turbine engine comprising:
a compressor section;
a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor
section;
a turbine section in fluid communication with the
combustor;
a frame connecting a first portion of said turbine engine a
second portion of the turbine engine[2], wherein said frame
includes a heat shield, and wherein said heat shield is a single
unit comprising:
a conical body;
at least one axial retention feature operable to
prevent said heat shield from shifting axially within the
turbine engine;
at least one circumferential retention feature
operable to prevent the heat shield from rotating about an
axis defined by the turbine engine; and
at least one radial retention feature operable to
dampen vibrational movement of the heat shield by
positioning the heat shield radially.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App'x).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated by Vo (US 2013/0309078 Al, pub. Nov. 21, 2013).
Claims 1--4, 10-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Durocher (US 2010/0132372 Al, pub. June 3, 2010).
2 This "frame" limitation appears to be missing one or more words between
"a first portion of said turbine engine" and "a second portion of the turbine
engine."
2
Appeal2017-008467
Application 13/630,019
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4 and 11
Rejected As Anticipated By Vo
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Vo discloses a turbine
engine having an axial retention feature ( e.g., inner peripheral portion 82 and
outer peripheral portion 84) to prevent the shield from shifting axially in the
turbine engine, a circumferential retention feature ( e.g., flow discourager 72)
to prevent the heat shield from rotating about an axis of the turbine engine,
and a radial retention feature ( e.g., first portion 70a of seal 70) to dampen the
vibrational movement of the heat shield by positioning the heat shield
radially. Final Act. 4, 8 (annotating the axial, circumferential, and radial
retention features on Fig. 2 of Vo). The Examiner cites paragraph 43 of Vo
for teaching that the heat shield reduces axial loading and vibration damping
on the vane pack, and the Examiner finds that the radial retention feature is
an integral part of the shield by virtue of its attachment to bearing portion
38a and, therefore, it would provide further vibration damping to the heat
shield. Id. at 2, 4; Ans. 2.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding that the radial retention
features of Vo provide vibration damping is pure speculation with no actual
basis in the teachings of Vo. Appeal Br. 4. Appellants also argue that axial
vibrational damping of Vo could be provided by any number of features and
there is no indication that the radial retention features provide the damping.
Id. Appellants further argue that paragraph 43 discloses shield system 60 as
providing vibration damping but there is no indication vibration damping is
provided by the alleged radial retention feature identified by the Examiner or
by positioning the heat shield radially as claimed. Reply Br. 2.
3
Appeal2017-008467
Application 13/630,019
We agree with the Examiner that seal 70 is a component of heat shield
system 60, and Vo discloses that heat shield system 60 reduces axial loading
on the vane pack 64 and provides vibration damping. Vo ,r,r 34, 43, Fig. 2.
However, even if Vo can be understood to teach that seal 70 forms a part of
heat shield system 60 that reduces axial loading and vibration damping on
vane pack 64, claim 1 recites "at least one radial retention feature operable
to dampen vibrational movement of the heat shield by positioning the heat
shield radially." The Examiner has not explained how Vo discloses that first
portion 70a is "operable to dampen vibrational movement of the heat shield
[ element 60 of Vo] by positioning the heat shield radially" as claimed.
First portion 70a of seal 70, which the Examiner treats as the claimed
radial retention feature, is connected to inner case 62 of mid-turbine frame
57 by fastener 78 and bearing 38a. Id. ,r 34. As shown in Figure 2 of Vo,
first portion 70a positions seal 70 and heat shield 60 radially, as claimed,
because seal 70 and heat shield 60 extend radially from first portion 70a.
However, Vo discloses that seal 70 is configured as a stepped seal to
provide a majority of the reaction loads back to inner case structure 62 rather
than to vane pack 64 so "loading impact to the vane pack 64 is minimized as
much as possible." Id. ,r,r 35, 36. First portion 70a of seal 70 may play a
role in reducing axial loading of vane pack 64 and damping vibration to vane
pack 64, but it is not clear how first portion 70a dampens vibration to heat
shield 60, or even to the seal 70 portion of heat shield system 60.
Appellants disclose radial retention features 156, 158 as curved tabs
that contact a wall of gas flowpath 110 and curve radially inward to provide
a spring effect that absorbs vibrations from the gas turbine engine to prevent
heat shield 150 from shifting radially. Spec. ,r 38.
4
Appeal2017-008467
Application 13/630,019
In contrast to the claimed radial retention features, Vo' s first portion
70a is a linear/straight portion of seal 70 that connects to inner case 62 at
bearing 38a and fastener 78. As such, first portion 70a does not appear to be
configured or operable to dampen vibrational movement of heat shield 60 or
seal 70. First portion 70a appears to be configured to transmit forces or
vibrations between inner case 62 and portions of seal 70. Vo's disclosure
that heat shield 60 provides vibration damping does not necessarily mean
that first portion 70a of seal 70 dampens vibrational movement of heat shield
60, as claimed, just because seal 70 is part of heat shield 60 or first portion
70a is attached to bearing portion 38a at inner case 62 as the Examiner finds.
Final Act. 2; Ans. 2; see In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
("Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient."). Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1--4 and 11
as anticipated by Vo.
Claims 1--4, 10---15, and 20
Rejected As Anticipated By Durocher
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the Examiner finds that
Durocher teaches a turbine engine with a heat shield ( outer ring 112) that
includes axial, circumferential, and radial retention features as annotated on
Figure 15 of Durocher. Final Act. 5, 6-7, 9. The Examiner's annotations
appear to identify catcher 208 of low pressure turbine case 204 as an axial
retention feature, outer case 30 as a circumferential retention feature, and
support boss 39 of outer case 30 as a radial retention feature. Id. at 9. The
Examiner finds that element 112 is a heat shield because it separates gas
flow path 120 from the area or space above element 112. See Ans. 3--4.
5
Appeal2017-008467
Application 13/630,019
Appellants argue that element 112 of Durocher is an outer ring of the
gas turbine flowpath and thus a portion of the flowpath that defines the outer
diameter and contains the primary flow, and there is no disclosure it serves
to prevent or minimize heat transfer from the flowpath to a region outside of
the flowpath. Reply Br. 2; see Appeal Br. 5. Appellants argue that even if
element 112 is considered to be a "heat shield" the retention features that the
Examiner identified in the annotated figure are not components of outer ring
112. Appeal Br. 6. As a result, Appellants argue that the retention features
are not part of outer ring 112 and do not form a single unit as claimed. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Durocher discloses a heat shield as
outer ring 112. In this regard, Appellants disclose that "a heat shield is
incorporated into the mid-turbine frame between an outer diameter case of
the gas turbine engine and the gas flowpath." Spec. ,r 3. Durocher's outer
ring 112 satisfies this description of a heat shield by being incorporated into
mid turbine frame 28 between an outer diameter case ( outer case 30) of the
gas turbine engine and gas flow path 120. See Durocher ,r,r 38, 47. It also
prevents gas in gas path 120 from contacting outer case 30. Id. Fig. 15; see
Spec. ,r 35 (heat shield 150 prevents gas passing through mid-turbine frame
57 from adversely affecting outer diameter wall 130 and engine casing).
We agree with Appellants that the retention features identified by the
Examiner are not part of outer ring 112 and therefore do not form a single
unit heat shield with outer ring 112 as required by claim 1. Claim 1 recites
"wherein said heat shield is a single unit" comprising a conical body and an
axial retention feature, a circumferential retention feature, and a radial
retention feature. As discussed below, independent claim 12 does not recite
this feature, however.
6
Appeal2017-008467
Application 13/630,019
Appellants disclose heat shield 150 as a single conical structure that
includes axial retention feature 152, circumferential retention feature 154,
and radial retention features 156, 158 located on aft or fore circumferential
edges of heat shield 150 and iterated multiple times on a single heat shield
150. Spec. ,r,r 36-39, Fig. 3. Appellants disclose another embodiment of
heat shield 310 as a single conical unit having axial retention features 340,
circumferential retention features 330, and radial retention features spaced
about the aft or fore circumferential edges 320, 322 of heat shield 310. Id.
,r,r 41, 42, Fig. 4.
Therefore, we interpret the limitation "a single unit" in claim 1 to
mean that the heat shield and its conical body and retention features form
one unitary structure. This meaning is consistent with an ordinary meaning
of "single" as "consisting of or having only one part, feature, or portion."
See Definition of "single" by Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/single (last viewed May 29, 2018). It is consistent
with Appellants' disclosure of their heat shields as a single element or unit,
as described above, in contrast to prior art heat shields, which use multiple
segments that are bolted or welded to the body of the mid turbine frame and
combine to form a single heat shield after assembly that accommodates
structural struts of the mid turbine frame. Spec. ,r 3. A configuration of a
single conical unit as a heat shield 310 that includes the claimed retention
features "allows the heat shield 310 to be installed into a mid-turbine frame
57 securely without requiring the use of fasteners to retain the heat shield
310 in place" and "eases the difficulty of assembly by not requiring a
technician assembling the mid-turbine frame 57 to assembly [sic] multiple
varied components of a heat shield." Id. ,r 43.
7
Appeal2017-008467
Application 13/630,019
The portions of Durocher identified by the Examiner as retention
features (catcher 208, support boss 39, outer case 30, see Final Act. 9) are
connected to casing 30 and outer ring 112 at vane lugs 124, 126 and thus do
not form a single unit with outer ring 112. See Durocher ,r,r 38--40, Fig. 15.
Indeed, Durocher refers to outer ring 112 and inner ring 114 as being formed
in sections or segments 122 that can be attached to spoke casing 32. Id. The
Examiner's interpretation of the limitation "a single unit" as not requiring a
single piece (Ans. 4) is inconsistent with the Specification and an ordinary
meaning of the term "single" interpreted in light of the Specification. 3 Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claims 2--4, 10, 11, and 20,
which depend from claim 1, as anticipated by Durocher.
Independent claim 12 recites a heat shield comprising a conical body,
at least one axial retention feature, at least one circumferential retention
feature, and at least one radial retention feature. Appeal Br. 10-11 (Claims
App'x). Appellants' argument that Durocher's outer ring 112 is not a heat
shield is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 1. Unlike
claim 1, however, claim 12 does not require the heat shield to be a single
unit. Therefore, Appellants' argument that Durocher's outer ring 112 is not
"a single unit" is not persuasive as to claim 12, and we sustain the rejection
of claim 12 and its dependent claims 13 and 14, which Appellants do not
argue separately, as anticipated by Durocher. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
3 If outer ring 112 is considered to form a single unit with any parts that are
connected to it directly or indirectly as the Examiner interprets the term, then
outer ring 112 no longer separates gas flow path 112 from outer case 30 and
its parts that now form part of outer ring 112 by being connected thereto.
Thus, outer ring 112 and its connected parts cannot be said to act as a heat
shield between gas flow path 120 and outer case 30.
8
Appeal2017-008467
Application 13/630,019
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1--4 and 11 as anticipated by Vo.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1--4, 10, 11, and 20 as anticipated
by Durocher, and we affirm the rejection of claims 12-15 as anticipated by
Durocher.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9