Ex parte Snyder, Appeal 2017-007797
| Decision Date | 20 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | Appeal 2017-007797,Application 13/725,137 |
| Parties | Ex parte TIMOTHY S. SNYDER, RANDAL G. MCKTNNEY, and JAMES B. HOKE Technology Center 3700 |
| Court | Patent Trial and Appeal Board |
Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and ANTHONY KNIGHT Administrative Patent Judges.
KNIGHT, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Office action dated January 4, 2016 ("Final Act."), and as further explained in the Advisory Action dated March 9, 2016 rejecting claims 14, 15, and 18-21.[2]We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine combustor section. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 14, 15, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Howell et al. (US 2005/0081526 A1, published Apr. 21, 2005) ("Howell").
OPINIONAppellants present arguments for independent claim 14, but do not present separate arguments for dependent claims 15 and 18-20 subject to this rejection. See Br. 6-10. These claims will be treated as a group, with claim 14 being representative, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015). Claims 15 and 18-20 stand or fall with claim 14.
The rejection of claim 14 as anticipated by Howell
The Examiner finds that Howell discloses, inter alia, "a first liner assembly (44) with a first quench hole (130) and a multiple of trim holes (140)." Final Act. 4. The Examiner further finds that Howell discloses a second liner assembly (40) including a second quench hole (120). Id. The Examiner finds that Howell also discloses "wherein the second and first quench holes are configured to split a quench flow in a ratio that is generally two-thirds to one-third, respectively," (id.) and "wherein said multiple of trim holes (140) are axially aligned [] with said second quench hole (120)" (id. at 6).
Appellants argue that "Howell fails to teach or suggest that the openings 140 .. . of the inner liner 44 . . . are axially aligned with the openings 120 . . . ." Br. 6. (underlining deleted) (emphasis added). Appellants argue that "[t]here is no teaching in Howell for inferring that the opening 120 is axially aligned with the boxed-openings 140 or stated differently, that the drawings of Howell are drawn to scale relative to one another." Id. at 8 (providing an annotated version of Figure 4 of Howell).
The Examiner explains that the drawings of Howell disclose the first and second liner assemblies with the second quench hole 120, and the multiple trim holes 140 are axially aligned with the second quench hole 120. Ans. 2-3 (). The Examiner further explains that Howell teaches that the trim holes are in axial alignment with the second quench hole because the axes of the trim holes and the axis of the second quench hole are coplanar-i.e., "along a same axial plane." Id. at 3. Additionally, the Examiner states that, "although areas 3 and 4 are not physically located on centerline 76 ... the centerline 76 is used as evidence that the trim holes [] and the opening (120) are located on the same axial plane." Id.
We first construe the language of claim 14, and in particular the phrase, "wherein said multiple of trim holes are axially aligned with said second quench hole." Br. 12 (Claims App'x.) (emphasis added). "[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Following the guidance in Morris, we look to the Specification for enlightenment. At various points in the Specification, Appellants refer to the quench hole as being axially aligned with the trim holes but do not provide further description. See e.g., Spec. ¶ 18 (). Appellants' Specification offers little guidance in interpreting this phrase.
We thus look to Appellants' drawings to assist us in interpreting the phrase. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that although patent drawings are not meant to be blueprints (see In re Andersen, 743 F.2d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1984) () (Citation omitted), overruled on other grounds, In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858-59 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), when a specification does not sufficiently address the claim language at issue, drawings may be used to aid in construction (see, e.g., Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012). An annotated copy of Appellants' Figure 15, is provided below.
(Image Omitted)
Appellants' "Figure 15 is an expanded perspective partial sectional view of a combustor sector with trim holes according to one non-limiting embodiment." Spec. ¶ 36. Figure 15 is annotated to illustrate the outer and inner combustor liners 60 and 62, respectively, swirler 90, first quench hole 122, second quench hole 124, and trim holes 126. See Spec. ¶¶ 61, 68. Claim 14 requires that the trim holes are contained in the first liner assembly having the first quench hole. See Br. 12 (Claims App'x.). Further, claim 14 requires that the second liner assembly include the second quench hole. See id. Describing Figure 15, the Specification discloses that quench holes 122 and 124 are axially opposed but spaced circumferentially offset with "the multiple of trim holes 126 [] circumferentially offset from the quench hole 124. See Spec. ¶¶ 61-62.
We construe the limitation at issue as requiring that the axes of the multiple trim holes and the axis of the second quench hole be in the same or parallel planes; this construction is be consistent with the Specification and Drawings (see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) (see, e.g., Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ()). This construction is broader than, but encompasses, the Examiner's construction of the phrase "axially aligned" to mean that the axis of the second quench hole and the axes of the multiple trim holes must all be in the same plane. Appellants do not disagree with the Examiner's construction, but rather argue that the Examiner's reliance on the figures of Howell is improper and that the figures of Howell do not disclose the limitation at issue under the Examiner's construction. Br. 6-8. For the reasons below, we disagree.
To assist in our discussion, a copy of Howell Figure 2 is provided below illustrating a cross-sectional view at the position of the center longitudinal axis of symmetry 76 of Howell. See Howell ¶¶ 19, 10. The version of Figure 2 of Howell below has also been annotated by the Board to remove some of the reference numerals and indicate the inner and outer liner assemblies, the positions of the primary dilution openings 120, 130 (the identified second and first quench holes respectively), and the impingement jets 140 (the identified trim holes).
(Image Omitted)
Figure 2 of Howell, reproduced above, is a cross-sectional view of a jet engine combustion chamber showing the interior structure along the same vertical plane. Howell ¶ 10. Howell, Figure 2, discloses an outer liner 40 and an inner 44 with primary dilution openings 120 and 130, respectively. The center longitudinal axis of symmetry 76 is illustrated as extending through the swirler 90 and into the combustion chamber.
Appellants argue that "[t]here is no teaching in Howell for inferring that the opening 120 is axially aligned with the boxed-openings 140, or stated differently, that the drawings of Howell are drawn to scale relative to one another." Br. 8. Appellants' argument belies the fact that Figure 2 of Howell shows the axis of the identified second quench hole (i.e., primary dilution opening 120) and the axes of the identified multiple trim holes (i.e., impingement jets 140) in the same plane-i.e., the plane of view of Figure 2 of Howell. Although patent drawings not designated as drawn to scale should not generally be relied on for measurements or to define precise proportions of depicted elements if the specification is silent on the issue, see Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int'l Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000), that does not mean "that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded;' In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). We determine that, by including dotted lines specifically indicating the location of the relied-upon axes. Figure 2 provides sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial