Ex Parte Alvanos

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 24, 2012

11505165 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/505,165 08/16/2006 Ioannis Alvanos 67097-634;0001963 4498
54549 7590 04/25/2012
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3783
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte IOANNIS ALVANOS
____________________

Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 19-23, and 25-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an arrangement for loading and retaining a
segmented fluid seal assembly within a gas turbine engine. (Spec. Para.
[0002].)
Claims 1 and 21, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A bladed rotor assembly comprising:
a rotor disk defining a disk rim and having a plurality of
rotor blades mounted to the disk rim;
a plurality of blade seal segments with one removably
mounted to each of the plurality of rotor blades, wherein each
of said blade seal segments including a knife edge; and
a plurality of disk seal segments are located between
adjacent pairs of the blade seal segments, said blade seal
segments and said disk seal segments together forming a seal
located about a circumference of the disk rim.

21. A rotor blade for a turbine section in a gas turbine engine
comprising:
a rotor blade having an airfoil and a root section;
a blade seal segment removably mounted to said root
section, wherein said blade seal segment includes a knife edge
at one axial end; and
said blade seal segment including axially spaced ends,
with said knife edge being formed on one of said axially spaced
ends, and legs extending axially to connect the two ends.
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

3
(Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix1 7.)

THE REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McLean (US
4,865,863, issued August 11, 1987) in view of Farrell (US
3,137,478, issued June 16, 1964). (Examiner’s Answer, dated
February 25, 2010, “Ans.” 3-4.)

II. The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McLean in view of Farrell as applied to claim
1, and further in view of Rankin et al. (US 2,974,924, issued
March 14, 1961). (Ans. 5.)

III. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McLean in view of Farrell as applied to claim
1, and further in view of Amos (US 3,841,792, issued October
15, 1974). (Ans. 5-6.)

IV. The Examiner rejected claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amos. (Ans. 6-7.)

V. The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amos as applied to
claims 21 and 25 and further in view of Van Nest et al. (US
3,043,562, issued July 10, 1962). (Ans. 7-8.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme
Court explained that “Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art

1 Appeal Brief filed December 16, 2009, hereinafter “App. Br.” and Claims
App’x, respectively.
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

4
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains.”’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its
patentability.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

Rejection I, Claims 1 and 19
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
The Examiner found that McLean discloses a bladed rotor assembly
as recited in claim 1, except that McLean does not disclose the use of blade
seal segments that are removably mounted to each of the rotor blades and
that include a knife edge. (Ans. 3-4.) The Examiner found that Farrell
discloses a bladed rotor assembly, which includes segmented cover plates,
each of which constitutes a blade seal segment that is removably mounted to
each blade via dovetails or tongues. (Ans. 4, 10.) The Examiner concluded
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the bladed rotor assembly of McLean by
utilizing removably mounted blade seal segments as taught by Farrell in
order to allow for removal of seal segments without inducing bending
moments or increased stresses. (Ans. 4.)
The Examiner further found that McLean’s invention utilizes knife
edges that extend from the stationary vane instead of the seal segments of
the disk or blades as recited in the claims. (Ans. 4.) The Examiner found
that reversing this arrangement, such that the knife edge extends from the
disk/blade element, is exceedingly well known in the art, and concluded that
the mere reversal of parts would have been an obvious expedient. (Ans. 4,
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

5
citing In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP § 2144.04
(VI)(A).)
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that Farrell’s cover plates
are not “removable” from the blade, but are wholly separate parts from the
blade. (App. Br. 4; Reply Brief, dated April 22, 2010, “Reply Br.” 1.)
Appellant argues that Farrell discloses a completely unique part located too
far radially inward to be considered a blade seal segment. (App. Br. 4.)
Appellant also argues that reconfiguring McLean such that the knife
edge extends from the seal segments of the disk or blade is not a “mere
reversal of parts,” because the knife edge most likely wears during operation
and, therefore, making the knife edge removable would facilitate
maintenance. (App. Br. 4.) Appellant argues that Gazda was decided well
before Graham v. John Deere, 386 U.S. 1 (1966), and thus, is questionable
law at best. (App. Br. 4.)
With respect to claim 19, Appellant argues that Farrell does not show
a tongue on the structure that secures any seal segment on the blade. (App.
Br. 4.)
Thus, a first issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
concluding that McLean in view of Farrell would have rendered obvious a
rotor assembly having removably mounted blade seal segments including a
knife edge as recited in claim 1 and the tongues as recited in claim 19?
B. DISCUSSION
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that because Farrell
discloses cover plates as entirely separate parts means that the cover plates
are not removable blade seal segments. Farrell’s cover plates are designed
to be removable and utilize a dovetail arrangement, which helps prevent
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

6
undesirable bending moments and/or local increased stresses. (Col. 4, ll. 10-
31.) The claimed blade seal segments are also separate from the rotor blades
(see, e.g. Fig. 7). Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to make blade seal segments of
McLean removable based on Farrell in light of the general understanding
that making serviceable parts removable provides known benefits. See In re
Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961) (noting that if it were considered
desirable for any reason to obtain access to a particular part, it would be
obvious to make that part removable).
We also find Appellant’s argument that Farrell’s cover plates are
located too far radially inward to be considered blade seal segments to be
unpersuasive. That is an argument that one with ordinary skill in the art
would not have regarded Farrell’s cover plates as blade seal segments
because of the particular location of the cover plates. Appellant has not
submitted any testimony of a technical witness in support of that assertion.
Mere argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the
record. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir.
1997); Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
Farrell’s cover plates are integral to the rotor blade assembly,
mounted to the long neck of the blade, and fit into a dovetail slot alongside
the base portion of the rotor blades. (Col. 2, ll. 49-53.) As the Examiner
noted, Appellant’s own blade seals are also located proximate the blade’s
base portion. (Spec., Figs. 2, 4, & 6; Ans. 10.) Thus, we do not discern a
patentable distinction between Farrell’s cover plates and the removable
blade seal segments recited in the claims. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

7
at the time the invention was made to modify the bladed rotor assembly of
McLean by utilizing removably mounted blade seal segments as taught by
Farrell.
Regarding the positioning of a knife edge, we agree with the
Examiner that positioning the knife edge on the removable seal segment, as
opposed to those extending from the stationary vane would have been
obvious. See generally In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1955) (holding
that mere reversal of parts was an obvious expedient). While Appellant
argues that In re Gazda is “questionable law,” Appellant offers no
persuasive reasons to question its holding. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1 (1966), did not overturn the holding of In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449
(CCPA 1955). Moreover, the rationale behind the obviousness of a reversal
of parts is supported by the standards outlined by the Court in KSR v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Particularly, the KSR Court explained
that the simple rearrangement of elements performing the same functions
they had been known to perform and yielding no more than one would
expect from such an arrangement would be obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417.
Appellant has not provided any reason why the rearrangement of parts
in this case would yield any unexpected results, particularly in light of the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 9) that the reversed knife edge arrangement is well
known in the art, as evidenced by Amos. (Amos, Fig. 1.) In this regard, the
facilitation of maintenance cannot be characterized as an unexpected result,
but rather the obvious result of rearranging a part known to require service.
With respect to claim 19, the preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner’s position (Ans. 10) that the dovetails of Farrell’s cover plates
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

8
are fairly construed as tongues. The term “tongue” is commonly defined as:
“in machines, a projecting flange, rib, etc.” WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
DICTIONARY 1534 (College Ed. 1966). Appellant has not directed our
attention to a specific meaning for the term “tongue” that would exclude a
dovetail arrangement. In this regard, the dovetails of Farrell’s cover plates
are a tongue or a projecting flange or rib, as the dovetail base portions
project outward at the base end of the cover plates so that they can fit into a
corresponding dovetail slot. (Col. 2, ll. 49-53; Fig. 6.)
Further, our reviewing court has instructed that “the claims
themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular
claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Appellant’s “tongue” is a structure that “interact[s] to secure,” and as the
Examiner noted (Ans. 9), Farrell’s dovetails “interact to secure” the cover
plates with respect to the blades, as required by claim 19. (Farrell, Col. 2, ll.
49-53). Accordingly, we also agree with the Examiner that the dovetails of
Farrell would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be
“tongues.”

Rejection II, Claim 3
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
With respect to claim 3, the Examiner found that McLean does not
disclose disk seal segments including a mounting feature for attachment to
the disk rim. (Ans. 5.) The Examiner found that Rankin discloses the use of
a plurality of disk seal segments that include a mounting feature that is
complimentary in shape to the seal mounting feature of the disk rim. (Ans.
5.) The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

9
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
bladed disk of McLean by utilizing seal segments separately mounted as
taught by Rankin in order to facilitate replacement of damaged seal
segments. (Ans. 5.)
Appellant argues that Rankin discloses a number of elements that
extend across the circumference of a rotor and does not disclose separate
blade seal and disk seal elements, such that nothing within Rankin would
suggest the modification to McLean and Farrell. (App. Br. 5.)
Therefore, a second issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of McLean, Farrell, and Rankin would have
rendered obvious a rotor assembly “wherein the disk seal segments comprise
a disk mounting feature and the disk rim comprises a complimentary shaped
seal mounting feature,” as recited in claim 3?
B. DISCUSSION
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11) that Appellant’s arguments
focus on the references individually rather than the combination of
references as set forth in the rejection. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner relies on McLean, not Rankin
or Farrell, for an arrangement of blade seals interspersed with disk seal
segments. Rankin discloses the use of segmental retaining rings
corresponding to a plurality of disk seal segments that include a dovetail
mounting feature complimentary in shape to the seal mounting feature or
circumferential groove of the disk rim. (Col. 3, ll. 7-52; Fig 1.) Rankin
further discloses that such a mounting arrangement for the disk seal
segments facilitates replacement of damaged segments. (Col. 3, ll. 38-48.)
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

10
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
the bladed disk of McLean by utilizing seal segments separately mounted as
taught by Rankin for facilitating replacement of damaged seal segments.
“[T]he test for combining references is not what the individual references
themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a
whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

Rejection III, Claim 20 and Rejection IV, Claims 21, 22, 25, and 26
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
With respect to claim 20, the Examiner found that the modified
invention of McLean discloses a bladed rotor assembly substantially as
claimed including separate blade seal segments on each axial face of the
disk, but that neither McLean nor Farrell disclose legs extending axially to
connect the two ends. (Ans. 5.) The Examiner found that Amos discloses
blade seal segments that include axially spaced ends, where each blade seal
segment includes knife edge seals that are connected by an axially extending
bridging member. (Ans. 6.) The Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to further modify the rotor assembly of McLean by connecting
the upstream and downstream seal portions with an axially extending
connecting piece as taught by Amos in order to facilitate assembly of the
rotor. (Ans. 6.) The Examiner made a similar conclusion with respect to the
rejection of claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 over Amos alone. (Ans. 7; Rejection
IV.) The Examiner further concluded that it would have been an obvious
matter of design choice to further modify the connecting member of McLean
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

11
by utilizing “legs” as claimed for the purpose of connecting the upstream
and downstream ends of the blade seal segment. (Ans. 6.)
Appellant argues that Amos does not disclose “legs,” but rather a
single central web because Amos’ blade seal segment is secured directly to
the bottom of the blade. (App. Br. 5.) Appellant also argues that Amos
cannot have two legs because its structure is different from the claimed
component and, as such, there would not be any benefit to including a
separate “leg.” (Reply Br. 3.) Appellant makes similar arguments with
respect to claims 21, 22, 25, and 26. (App. Br. 5.)
Thus, a third issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of McLean, Farrell, and Amos would have
rendered obvious a rotor assembly having “legs extending axially to connect
the two ends,” as recited in claim 20?
B. DISCUSSION
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that there would be no
benefit to the inclusion of an additional leg in Amos. Amos discloses a
blade seal segment that includes axially spaced ends that are connected by
an axially extending bridge member. (Col. 1, l. 62 – Col. 2, l. 15; Fig. 2.)
The bridge member of Amos corresponds to a leg, and serves to connect and
integrate the upstream and downstream ends of the blade seal segment.
(Col. 1, l. 62 – Col. 2, l. 15; Figs. 1-2.) The use of a leg in the invention of
McLean to connect the upstream and downstream ends of a blade seal
segment involves the simple combination of a known technique to connect
the upstream and downstream ends of a blade seal segment and yields
predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In addition, Appellant has
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

12
not directed our attention to persuasive evidence that the inclusion of an
additional leg leads to new or unexpected results.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been an
obvious design choice to modify the connecting member of Mclean to use a
leg structure as taught by Amos and to further duplicate the leg of Amos for
the purpose of connecting the upstream and downstream ends of the blade
seal segment. See generally In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960)
(holding that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance
unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
Further, because Appellant’s argument against Rejection IV (based on
Amos alone) raises similar issues to those discussed in regards to Rejection
III, we also sustain Rejection IV for similar reasons.

Rejection V, Claims 23 and 27
A. ISSUE ON APPEAL
The Examiner found that Amos discloses the use of a spring biased
pin to provide a “locking engagement” between the blade seal segments and
blade roots. (Ans. 8.) The Examiner also found that Van Nest discloses a
bladed rotor assembly including blade seal segments that are mounted to
blades using tongues on the segments that cooperate with tongues of the
rotor blades to secure the blade seal segments to the rotor blades. (Ans. 8.)
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to further modify
the bladed rotor assembly of Amos by utilizing a tongue connecting
structure as taught by Van Nest for the purpose of more securely connecting
the blade seal segments to the blades. (Ans. 8.)
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

13
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 27
ignores the entire structure and function of Amos. (App. Br. 6.) Appellant
also argues that there would be no reason to retain the “leg” of Amos if a
“tongue” connection structure were utilized. (Reply Br. 4.)
A fourth issue on appeal is therefore whether the Examiner erred in
concluding that Amos in view of Van Nest would have rendered obvious the
rotor blade having “tongues that interact” as recited in claim 23?
B. DISCUSSION
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 23 and 27 ignores the entire structure and function of
Amos. Appellant does not provide any persuasive analysis or reasoning as
to why the “entire structure and function of Amos” would dissuade or
otherwise render unobvious the use of tongue connection structure. “[I]t is
not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable
to render obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Combining the teachings of references does not
involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482
F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Rather, a reference must be considered for
everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the
particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect. See EWP
Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see
also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

14
In this regard, we note that the tongue connecting structure is well
known and prevalent in the art, as evidenced by Van Nest. (Figs. 1-3.)
While Amos uses a pin to connect the bridge member or leg of a blade seal
segment to the blade (Col. 2, ll. 42-45; Fig. 6), Amos does not teach against
or otherwise dissuade a skilled artisan from using additional securing means
to secure blade seal segments to a rotor blade. Thus, the use of a tongue
connecting structure merely involves the use of a known technique to secure
a seal segment and to improve a similar device in the same way. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 417.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to further modify the bladed rotor assembly of Amos by utilizing a tongue
connecting structure as taught by Van Nest.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in concluding that McLean in view of
Farrell would have rendered obvious removably mounted blade seal
segments including a knife edge as recited in claim 1 and the tongues as
recited in claim 19.
The Examiner did not err in concluding that the combination of
McLean, Farrell, and Rankin would have rendered obvious the limitation
“wherein the disk seal segments comprise a disk mounting feature and the
disk rim comprises a complimentary shaped seal mounting feature,” as
recited in claim 3.
Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

15
The Examiner did not err in concluding that the combination of
McLean, Farrell, and Amos would have rendered obvious the limitation
“legs extending axially to connect the two ends,” as recited in claim 20.
The Examiner did not err in concluding that Amos in view of Van
Nest would have rendered obvious the limitation “tongues that interact” as
recited in claim 23.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McLean in view of Farrell.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McLean in view of Farrell as
applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rankin.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McLean in view of Farrell as
applied to claim 1, and further in view of Amos.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amos.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amos as applied to claims 21 and
25 and further in view of Van Nest.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1).

Appeal 2010-007149
Application 11/505,165

16
AFFIRMED

cu