UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2021

2020006374 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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.
14/779,841 09/24/2015 Christopher Corcoran 1213-24799WOUS 8979
11943 7590 05/20/2021
Getz Balich LLC
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
CHRISTENSEN, DANIELLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2021 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):
shenry@getzbalich.com
uspto@getzbalich.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN and ANTHONY P. CHEROLIS
____________

Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–7, 10–20, 23, and 24.2 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). Appellant identifies United Technologies Corporation as
the Applicant and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 8, 9, and 18–22 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a seal for sealing a gap between rotor
blades in a turbine engine. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A turbine engine assembly arranged relative to an axis, the
assembly comprising:
a rotor blade including an airfoil and a base;
the airfoil extending axially between an upstream leading
edge and a downstream trailing edge, and radially out from the
base; and
the base including a neck and a pocket, the neck extending
axially to a downstream surface, and the pocket extending
laterally into the neck; and
a feather seal configured with an L-shaped geometry that
extends longitudinally from a distal upstream edge of the
feather seal to a distal downstream edge of the feather seal, the
feather seal extending laterally into the pocket, and the feather
seal including a downstream leg that extends along the
downstream surface to the distal downstream edge;
wherein the downstream leg extends both axially and
radially inward from an arcuate corner of the feather seal to the
distal downstream edge.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Barcza US 5,573,375 Nov. 12, 1996
Gonsor US 5,827,047 Oct. 27, 1998
Rago US 2004/0255590 A1 Dec. 23, 2004
Bergman US 2011/0206501 A1 Aug. 25, 2011
Jackson US 9,512,782 B2 Dec. 6, 2016
Bouchard US 9,534,500 B2 Jan. 3, 2017
Shukin WO 2007/063128 A1 June 7, 2007
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
3
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1–4, 12–16, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Jackson, Bergman, and Gonsor.
2. Claims 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jackson, Bergman, Gonsor, and Shukin.
3. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jackson, Bergman, Bouchard, Barcza, and Gonsor.
4. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jackson, Bergman, Barcza, and Rago.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1–4, 12–16, 23, and 24
over Jackson, Bergman, and Gonsor
Appellant argues claims 1–4, 12–16, 23, and 24 as a group. Appeal
Br. 8–9. Claim 1 is representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Jackson discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for an L-shaped feather seal, for which the Examiner
relies on Bergman. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner also cites Gonsor as
demonstrating that it was well known to provide seals between rotor blades.
Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
Jackson with an L-shaped feather seal as taught by Bergman. Id. According
to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
seal the space between adjacent platforms. Id.
Appellant argues that Bergman’s seal is “T-shaped” rather than
“L-shaped” as claimed. Appeal Br. 8, Reply Br. 2. In response, the
Examiner characterizes Bergman’s seal as having an L-shaped “portion”
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
4
coupled to a second “portion” that extends past the L-shaped geometry.
Ans. 3.
Bergman discloses a feather seal arrangement that features a
combined feather seal slot and lightening pocket. Bergman, Abstract. The
feather seal seals a gap between adjacent turbine vanes which allows cooling
air to pass from cooling passage 178 to cooling inlet 176 for cooling
vane 130. Id. at ¶ 18. Bergman features first feather seal (144) in a first end
of vane 130 (140) and also features second feather seal (154) in a second end
of vane 130 (150). Id. ¶ 16, Figs 2A. Bergman uses a “double sheet” of
sealing material. Id. ¶ 18. As perhaps best illustrated in Figure 3, the
sealing material is doubled-over or two-ply for a substantial portion of is
axial length, but then splits apart into two separate directions in two different
slots as it approaches the aft or trailing edge of the vane assembly. Id.
Fig. 3. After the seal splits into two different directions, one of two distinct
portions, which extends radially inward, appears to be longer than the other.
Id. A similar configuration appears to be illustrated in Figure 2A with
respect to upper feather seal 154. Id. Fig. 2A. However, in the case of
seal 154, the length differential between the two divergent seal portions
appears to be more pronounced. Id.
Appellant’s claim 1 recites a feather seal that: (1) extends
longitudinally from a distal upstream edge of the feather seal to a distal
downstream edge of the feather seal; (2) extends laterally into a pocket; and
(3) has a downstream leg that ends radially inward along a downstream
surface to a distal downstream edge. Claims App. There is no genuine
dispute between Appellant and the Examiner that Bergman’s feather
seal 144 exhibits all of these features.
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
5
Appellant and the Examiner part ways where Bergman’s feather
seal 144 parts ways into two divergent portions. From the Examiner’s point
of view, the downward and radially inward extending leg of Bergman’s seal
forms an L-shaped portion when considered in conjunction with that certain
portion of seal 144 that extends upstream (toward the left of Figure 2A) from
the point of divergence. From Appellant’s point of view, such divergence
causes the seal, taken as a monolithic whole, to exhibit an overall T-shaped
appearance.
In weighing the respective positions of the Examiner and Appellant,
we are mindful that this case is about mechanical structure, not spelling.
Terms like “L-shaped” and “V-shaped” and “T-shaped” are commonly used
descriptive terms that conjure up an image in the human mind as to the
appearance of a mechanical structure. There is a reasonable limit, however,
as to how such terms can be used to patentably distinguish one structure
from another. For example, there is a sense in which every “T-shape”
incorporates and includes an “L-shape.” Thus, for the purposes of the
instant appeal, we look to Bergman’s disclosure to ascertain whether the
additional leg of Bergman’s feather seal, namely, the leg that Appellant
argues causes the seal to be T-shaped instead of L-shaped, performs some
critical or essential function.
Having reviewed Bergman’s entire disclosure, we are unable to
conclude that the additional leg is critical or essential to Bergman’s
invention and Appellant presents neither evidence nor argument that it does.
See generally Appeal Br. Bergman’s seal 144 directs cooling air through
cooling passage 178 and into cooling inlet 176. Bergman, ¶ 18, Fig. 3. This
function appears to be adequately performed by the two legs of seal 144 that
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
6
the Examiner’s characterizes as the “L-shaped” portion. Id. It is settled that
law that merely omitting an element and its function in a combination where
the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only
routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 311 F.2d 581, 584 (CCPA 1963).
Under the circumstances, the Examiner does not err in finding that the “L-
shaped” portion of Bergman’s seal satisfies the “configured with an L-
shaped geometry” limitation of claim 1.
Our determination in this regard is bolstered by the teachings of
Bouchard. See Bouchard, col. 2, l. 57 – col. 3, l. 46, Fig. 3 (sealing strip 40).
In connection with the rejection of independent claim 10, the Examiner
finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Bouchard discloses an L-shaped
seal. Final Act. 10 (citing Bouchard, Fig. 3). Although Bouchard is not
cited as applied art in the rejection, it, nevertheless, serves as evidence of the
background knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art with respect
to the use of L-shaped feather seals in the prior art. See Randall v. Rea, 733
F.3d 1355, 1361–1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discussing references that serve as
evidence of background knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Such background knowledge reinforces the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious to modify Jackson with an “L-shaped” seal.
The Examiner’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence and the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-
founded. In view thereof, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 1–4, 12–16, 23, and 24.
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
7
Unpatentability of Claims 5, 6, and 7
over Jackson, Bergman, Gonsor, and Shukin
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of claims 5, 6,
and 7 apart from arguments presented with respect to claim 1 which we have
previously considered. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6,
and 7. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (failure to separately argue claims
constitutes a waiver of arguments for separate patentability).
Unpatentability of Claims 10 and 11
over Jackson, Bergman, Bouchard, Barcza, and Gonsor.
Appellant argues claims 10 and 11 as a group. Appeal Br. 9–11.
Independent claim 10 is representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 10 is substantially similar in scope to claim 1 except that it includes
limitations directed to a plurality of bumpers that laterally locate the feather
seal within a pocket where a first bumper is located at the upstream edge of
the seal and a second bumper is located at the downstream edge of the seal.
Claims App. The Examiner finds that Barcza discloses lateral locating
surfaces 58 that are analogous to Appellant’s bumpers, except for their
precise location at the “downstream edge” of the seal. Final Act. 10. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Jackson with
bumpers, as taught by Barcza, and to further modify Jackson and Barcza to
dispose an additional bumper at the downstream edge of the seal. Id.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
done this as merely a matter of providing a duplicative part. Id. at 10–11.
The Examiner considers the result achieved by such modification to be
predictable. Id. at 11.
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
8
Appellant argues that Barcza discloses damping block 16 at the
downstream edge of its seal. Appeal Br. 10. “Barcza teaches positioning a
damping block at its alleged downstream edge, not one of its alleged
bumpers.” Id. Appellant considers Barcza’s disclosure of damping block 16
as a “teaching away” from positioning a bumper at the downstream edge of
the seal. Id.
Appellant’s “teaching away” argument is not persuasive. A reference
does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an
alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The “mere disclosure of alternative
designs does not teach away.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). Rather, teaching away requires “clear discouragement” from
implementing a technical feature. In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2017). Appellant does not cite any language from Barcza that
discourages the use of bumpers at the downstream edge of the feather seal.
The Examiner states that Barcza is used to teach that bumpers (58)
can be used to locate the seal. Ans. 5–6. The Examiner credibly explains
the purpose of using bumpers in a seal assembly.
By using bumpers to laterally locate the seal, rather than the
entire length of the wall, this helps reduce the weight of the
blades (since the seal rests only against the bumpers, rather than
the entire length of the wall, and so more of the wall can be
recessed from the seal). Barcza (Fig. 6) specifically teaches
that bumpers (58) are positioned at the upstream edge of the
seal and the bend of the seal. While Barcza fails to disclose that
there is a bumper at the downstream edge of the seal, the
damping block (16) disclosed by Barcza acts as an additional
bumper, in that it in addition to helping damp the assembly, it
also helps maintain the position of the seal.
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
9
Id. at 6.
In reply, Appellant argues that Barcza’s damping block does not
locate the seal as asserted by the Examiner. Reply Br. 2–4. Instead,
according to Appellant, Barcza shows lateral gaps on either side of platform
seal 14. Id. at 3. Appellant provides an annotated version of Figure 3 from
Barcza to illustrate this point. Id. This reply brief argument is not
persuasive, among other things, because Appellant’s own Figure 4 shows a
similar lateral gap between the downstream edge of seal 138 and
bumper 105. See Appellant’s Figure 4
Appellant’s argument regarding Barcza is essentially a bodily
incorporation argument. In other words, Appellant operates under the
assumption that lateral locating surfaces 58 and damping block 16 are a
package deal such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to
Barcza’s teaching about locating surfaces without believing that damping
block 16 must be included therewith. However, “[t]he test for obviousness
is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference....” In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). Instead, we look to whether the claimed invention is rendered
obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). In this regard, we note that Bergman
provides a feather seal that is not attached to a damping block. Bergman,
Fig 2A. Similarly, Boucher’s feather seal is not attached to a damping block
at one end. Boucher, Fig. 3. Furthermore, Gonsor discloses a seal 42 in
proximity to damper 40, but the damper is not disposed at the downstream
edge of the seal. Gonsor, Fig. 1. In short, Appellant’s argument does not
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
10
convince us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be dissuaded
from disposing bumpers (or lateral locating surfaces) such as Barcza
element 58 proximate the downstream edge of a seal.
Barcza’s lateral locating surfaces 58 are almost identical to
Appellant’s bumpers 104 and 105. Compare Barcza, Fig. 1, Appellant’s
Figs. 3–4. In each case, there is a feather seal (138 in Appellant, 14 in
Barcza) each of which has a width. The respective feather seals fit within
pockets (Appellant 90, Barcza 60) that are wider than the seals. Id. In order
to maintain the seals in the correct position, Appellant and Barcza each
employ bumpers that inhibit lateral movement. Id. In each case, providing
lateral surfaces at select locations along the length of the seal keeps the seal
in place, but saves the additional weight that would be experienced if lateral
support structure is provided along the entire length of the seal.
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have considered it obvious to modify the combination of
Jackson, Bergman, Bouchard, and Gonsor with bumpers as taught by Barcza
and to provide bumpers at the downstream edge of the seal. We also agree
with the Examiner that flanges 36 of damper block 16 at the downstream end
of the seal of Barcza operate to maintain the lateral position of the seal.
Ans. 6. This is sufficient to suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art
that bumpers could be substituted for flanges 36 at the downstream edge of
Barcza. Again, Gonsor is useful for teaching that alternative damping
means, other than Barcza’s damping block 16, are known in the prior art.
The Examiner’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence and the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-
Appeal 2020-006374
Application 14/779,841
11
founded. In view thereof, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 10 and 11.
Unpatentability of Claim 17
over Jackson, Bergman, Barcza, and Rago.
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of claim 17
apart from arguments presented with respect to claim 1, which we have
previously considered. Appeal Br. 11. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Rev’d
1-4, 12-16,
23, 24
103 Jackson, Bergman, Gonsor 1-4, 12-16,
23, 24

5, 6, 7 103 Jackson, Bergman, Gonsor,
Shukin
5, 6, 7
10, 11 103 Jackson, Bergman,
Bouchard, Barcza, Gonsor
10, 11
17 103 Jackson, Bergman, Barcza,
Rago
17
Overall
Outcome
1-7, 10-17,
23, 24

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED