Ex Parte Houston

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

13660455 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/660,455 10/25/2012 David P. Houston
54549 7590 06/29/2018
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.
PA0022066U;67097-2040PUS1 7366
EXAMINER
FLORES, JUAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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 DAVID P. HOUSTON
Appeal2017-009129
Application 13/660,455
Technology Center 3700
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David P. Houston ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, 13, 14, and 17. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 United Technologies Corporation is the applicant and identified as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009129
Application 13/660,455
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention is directed to "airfoil attachments for gas
turbine engines." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An airfoil attachment comprising:
an airfoil and a disk supporting the airfoil, there being
primary contact surfaces and secondary contact surfaces between
the airfoil and the disk, the secondary contact surfaces not being
engaged during a normal operating condition in which the
primary contact surfaces are sufficient to support the airfoil
relative to the disk without the aid of the secondary contact
surfaces, wherein one of the secondary contact surfaces is
provided by a tooth and there is a gap around the entirety of the
tooth during the normal operating condition.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. §§ I02(a)/(e) as anticipated by Wardle (US 2012/0163995
Al, published June 28, 2012).
2) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Wardle and Gouda (US 2011/0085888 Al, published Apr. 14,
2011).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "the secondary contact surfaces not being
engaged during a normal operating condition." Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues that "the Examiner does not establish that Wardle' s
Figure 4 represents the root 2 and rotor 10 during a normal operating
2
Appeal2017-009129
Application 13/660,455
condition." Appeal Br. 3. According to Appellant, Figure 4 of Wardle
could represent a non-operational position and "the Examiner has not
established-either expressly or inherently-that Wardle's Figure 4 represents
a 'normal operating condition,' as claimed." Id. at 4; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner responds that the rejection does not rely on inherency
but rather on an interpretation of Wardle's Figure 4 "based on 'what [it]
reasonably disclose[s] and suggest[s] to one of ordinary skill in the art' as
established in the MPEP (2125 I) since the features being claimed are
unexplained in the specification of Wardle." Ans. 7-8. The Examiner states
that Wardle' s Figure 4 reasonably suggests "an operating condition since
during operation centrifugal forces caused by the rotor/blade rotation push
the blade and its root radially outward, causing the primary contact surfaces
to engage each other." Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, for a non-
operating condition in Wardle' s Figure 4, one of ordinary skill in the art
"would expect a gap on both radially outward facing surfaces of both
primary and second tooth, in addition one or both radially inward facing
surfaces of both primary and secondary tooth to be in contact with the
radially outward facing surface of the first and second cavity, respectively."
Ans. 8-9.
"[I]f a reference is ambiguous and can be interpreted so that it may or
may no [sic] constitute an anticipation of an appellant's claims, an
anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based upon the ambiguous
reference is improper." In re Brink, 419 F .2d 914, 917 (CCP A 1970). Here,
although we appreciate the Examiner's position that Wardle's Figure 4 may
suggest an operating condition based on the contact surfaces engaging each
other, there is no explicit disclosure in Wardle to support this conclusion and
3
Appeal2017-009129
Application 13/660,455
the opposite conclusion, could also reasonably be inferred based on
Wardle's disclosure.
First, Wardle' s Figure 4 shows a point of contact ( or a line extended
along the depth of the disk), and one of ordinary skill in the turbine art
would not consider a point of contact sufficient to maintain the stability of
the blade during rotation. Specifically, a point of contact would not prevent
the blade from moving side-to-side. Second, as seen from Figs. 1--4 of
Wardle, it appears that the rotor groove of rotor 10 is angled from the front
to the rear of the rotor. See Wardle, Fig. 2. We agree with Appellant that
Wardle's "blade could also be held in [a] non-operational position because
of other blade and slot dimensions not shown in Figure 4." Appeal Br. 4.
Further, the nature of Wardle's invention, namely, a plate covering a hole
(See Wardle, Claim 1), is better illustrated by depicting a stationary blade.
Finally, Wardle merely describes mounting the blade in a rotor groove. See
Wardle, ,r 32.
Given that Wardle reasonably can be interpreted so that it does not
disclose an operating condition and hence does not anticipate, the
Examiner's finding that Wardle anticipates claim 1 is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Independent claim 11 contains substantially the same limitation as
claim 1. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). In the rejection of claim 11, the
Examiner relies on substantially the same findings with respect to Wardle as
for claim 1. Final Act. 6. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 for the
same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Claims 3---6 and 8-10 depend
from claim 1, and claims 13, 14, and 1 7 depend from claim 11. We do not
4
Appeal2017-009129
Application 13/660,455
sustain the rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as
discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 11.
Rejection 2
Claim 7 depends indirectly from claim 1. Appeal Br. 6 (Claims
App.). The Examiner rejects claim 7 based on Wardle with additional
disclosure from Gouda. Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner does not rely on the
additional disclosure from Gouda to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of
claim 1 discussed above. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 7 for the
same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, 13, 14, and 17 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5