Ex Parte Allen-Bradley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11415898 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

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.
11/415,898 05/02/2006 Eunice Allen-Bradley 67097-936PUS1;00888US 6781
54549 7590 02/26/2013
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte EUNICE ALLEN-BRADLEY, ERIC A. GROVER,
THOMAS J. PRAISNER, and JOEL H. WAGNER
____________________

Appeal 2010-005916
Application 11/415,898
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: GAY ANN SPAHN, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005916
Application 11/415,898
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
14 and 19-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

The claimed subject matter “relates to airfoil arrays such as those used
in turbine engines.” Spec. 1, para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An airfoil array comprising a laterally extending endwall
with a series of airfoils projecting therefrom, each airfoil having
a suction surface and a pressure surface, the airfoils cooperating
with the endwall to define a series of fluid flow passages, the
endwall having a pressure side trough that blends on the
pressure side of one of the passages into a more elevated region
with increasing lateral displacement toward a suction side of the
one of the passages, the more elevated region being
noncomplementary with respect to the trough.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hausmann
Hoeger
Staubach
US 2,735,612
US 6,017,186
US 6,669,445 B2
Feb. 21, 1956
Jan. 25, 2000
Dec. 30, 2003

Appellants’ admission of prior art (hereinafter “AAPA”) of Figures 2-4.

REJECTIONS
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 23-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hoeger.
Appeal 2010-005916
Application 11/415,898
3
Claims 3, 6-8, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoeger and Staubach.
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hoeger in view of AAPA.
Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hoeger and Hausmann.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Hoeger
Addressing claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hoeger discloses
an airfoil array (3) comprising a laterally extending
endwall (2) with a series of airfoils projecting
therefrom. Each airfoil has a suction surface and
pressure surface, and they cooperate with the
endwall to define a series of fluid flow passages.
The endwall has a pressure side trough (K) that
blends on the pressure side of the passage into a
more elevated region with increasing lateral
displacement toward a suction side of the passage.
The more elevated region is axisymmetric and
non-complementary with respect to the trough.
Ans. 3-4. To clarify his findings, the Examiner provides an annotated
version of Hoeger’s Figure 4C. Ans. 9. (Reproduced below).

App
App

findi
“blen
displ

troug
trian
troug
eleva
that
are o
teach
into
eal 2010-0
lication 11
The Exam
ngs with r
ds . . . int
acement t
The Exa
h “blends
gle symbo
h which i
ted than t
“the conto
n the suct
a pressur
a more ele
05916
/415,898
Examine
iner’s anno
espect to t
o a more e
oward a su
miner’s an
into a mo
l, and the
s to the rig
he area to
urs J [repr
ion side, n
e side trou
vated regi
r’s Annot
tated Figu
he claim la
levated reg
ction side
notated fi
re elevated
Examiner
ht of the s
the left of
esented by
ot the pres
gh that ble
on." App.
4
ated Figur
re 4C of H
nguage of
ion,” and
.”
gure appea
region” t
states that
quare in th
the square
triangle s
sure side.
nds ‘on th
Br. 7. Th
e 4C of Ho
oeger dep
“pressure
“with incr
rs to show
o be betwe
“[t]he part
e figure is
.” Ans. 9.
ymbol in F
The conto
e pressure
e portion o
eger
icts the E
side troug
easing lat
the area w
en the squ
of the Ho
clearly m
Appellan
igures 4B
urs J thus
side’ of th
f the pass

xaminer’s
h,”
eral
here the
are and th
eger et al.
ore
ts counter
and 4C]
do not
e passage
age
e

Appeal 2010-005916
Application 11/415,898
5
identified by the Examiner that “. . . blends into a more elevated region” is
much closer to the suction side (SS) of the airfoil than the pressure side (PS).
Thus, Appellants have correctly identified error in the Examiner’s findings.
As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 or claims 2, 4, 5, 23, and
24 which depend therefrom.
Addressing claim 25, this claim differs from claim 1 as it does not
include the limitation of a “pressure side trough that blends on the pressure
side of one of the passages into a more elevated region” as recited in claim 1
discussed supra. App. Br., Clms. App’x. Emphasis added. Rather, claim
25 recites that the endwall has “a trough that blends laterally toward a
suction side of the passage into a more elevated region that is
noncomplementary with respect to the trough,” and the trough “having a
negative peak that is closer to the pressure surface of the airfoil defining the
passage than the suction surface of the cooperating airfoil defining the
passage.” Id.
The Examiner finds that
Hoeger et al. disclose an airfoil array (3)
comprising a laterally extending endwall (2) with a
series of airfoils projecting therefrom. Each airfoil
has a suction surface and pressure surface, and
they cooperate with the endwall to define a series
of fluid flow passages. The endwall has a trough
(K) that blends laterally toward a suction side of
the passage into a more elevated region that is non-
complementary with respect to the trough. The
trough has a negative peak that is adjacent to the
pressure surface of the adjacent airfoil, thus
making it closer to the pressure surface.
Ans. 4-5.
App
App
blen
room
entir
the e
bein
troug
more
cont
as no
troug
press
from
non-
cont
Br. 5
versi
eal 2010-0
lication 11
First, Ap
d into a mo
for the m
e fluid flow
ntire cross
g commen
h from ex
elevated
our “K” ne
ted by the
h portion
ure side.
Next, Ap
Figure [4
compl[e]m
our K bala
. In an att
on of Figu
05916
/415,898
pellants a
re elevate
ore elevat
passage
section is
surate with
tending en
region bein
ar the suc
Examiner
of contour
See Hoege
pellants c
]C of Hoeg
entary. T
nce the les
empt to cl
re 4C. Ap
Appella
rgue that H
d region,”
ed region b
.” App. Br
a trough.
the scope
tirely acro
g within t
tion side, b
in the ann
“K,” prox
r, Fig. 4C
ontend tha
er, the co
hat is, the
s elevated
arify this a
p. Br. 5.
nts’ annota
6
oeger’s “
for the rea
ecause th
. 5. Appe
This argu
of the cla
ss the flui
he trough
etween th
otated fig
imate to t
.
t “[a]s can
ncave con
more elev
regions o
rgument,
(Reproduc
ted Figure
concave co
son that “
e concave
llants appe
ment is un
im which
d flow pas
. The elev
e square a
ure, is “mo
he circle s
perhaps b
tour K is c
ated region
f the conca
Appellants
ed below)
4C of Ho
ntour K d
[t]here is s
contour K
ar to be ar
persuasive
does not li
sage, nor
ated portio
nd triangle
re elevate
ymbol, nea
e best app
ompl[e]m
s of the c
ve contou
present a
.
eger
oes not
imply no
covers th
guing that
as not
mit the
from the
n of the
symbols
d” than th
r the
reciated
entary, not
oncave
r K.” App
marked up

e

e

.

Appeal 2010-005916
Application 11/415,898
7
Appellants’ annotated Figure 4C of Hoeger depicts where Appellants
consider the magnitude of one region of the trough K balances the
magnitude of another region of the trough.
In other words, it appears Appellants consider that the magnitude of
the cross-sectional area proximate to the circle symbol on contour “K” is
equal to the magnitude of the cross-sectional area proximate the triangle
symbol on contour “K” in order to be complementary, not
noncomplementary according to the Specification’s definitions of that term.
See Spec. 9, para, [0029] and Spec. 10-11, para. [0033]. However,
Appellants provide no explanation as to how these two areas balance or
equal one another. In applying the Specification’s definition of non-
complementary, i.e., “the magnitude of the depression does not balance the
magnitude of the hump such that the increase in passage cross sectional area
attributable to the depression equals the decrease in cross sectional area
attributable to the hump” (Spec., para. [0029]), we are not persuaded that
Appellants’ annotated Figure 4C supports the Appellants’ contention that
contour “K” of Hoeger is complementary, not noncomplementary. As such,
we sustain the rejection of claim 25, and claim 26 which depends therefrom.

Obviousness over Hoeger and Staubach
With respect to claims 3, 6-8, and 19-22, the Examiner introduces
Staubach to address the dependent claim limitations. However, Staubach
does not remedy the underlying deficiency of Hoeger, which fails to teach a
“trough that blends on the pressure side of one of the passages into a more
elevated region” as required by claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 3, 6-8, and 19-22 as obvious over Hoeger and Staubach.

Appeal 2010-005916
Application 11/415,898
8
Obviousness over Hoeger and AAPA
Addressing claims 9-11, the Examiner finds that Hoeger “disclose[s]
all elements substantially as claimed, but fail[s] to disclose the particular
relationships of the platforms to the airfoils in either blade or vane
configuration. However, these features are well-known to the art.” Ans. 6.
Because AAPA, i.e., prior art Figures 2-4, does not remedy the underlying
deficiency of Hoeger, which fails to teach a “trough that blends on the
pressure side of one of the passages into a more elevated region” as required
by claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9-11 as obvious over
Hoeger and AAPA.

Obviousness over Hoeger and Hausmann
Addressing claims 12-14, the Examiner finds that Hoeger “fail[s] to
disclose that there is a ridge adjacent a forward portion of the trough.
Hausmann teaches an axisymmetric platform construction which includes a
ridge which blends into a less elevated profile extending laterally across the
passage toward the trailing edge of a neighboring airfoil in the array.” Ans.
7. However, Hausmann does not remedy the underlying deficiency of
Hoeger, which fails to teach a “trough that blends on the pressure side of one
of the passages into a more elevated region” as required by claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12-14 as obvious over
Hoeger and Hausmann.

Appeal 2010-005916
Application 11/415,898
9
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 and
19-24 is reversed and the rejection of claims 25 and 26 is affirmed.
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-IN-PART

hh