Ex Parte Burdgick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12706198 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121706, 198 02/16/2010
80944 7590 09/28/2016
Hoffman Warnick LLC
540 Broadway
4th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Sebastian Burdgick
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.
241736-1 1183
EXAMINER
JAGODA, AARON H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
ptocommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN SEBASTIAN BURDGICK,
JASON PAUL MORTZHEIM, and DOMINICK JOSEPH WERTHER
Appeal2014-007298
Application 12/706, 198
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, JILL D. HILL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steven Sebastian Burdgick et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 7-10, 14--17,
and 19-21. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 1---6, 11-13, 18, and 22-27 have been canceled.
Appeal2014-007298
Application 12/706, 198
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 7, the sole independent claim on appeal, represents
the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below, with key disputed
limitations italicized.
7. A steam turbine diaphragm assembly comprising:
an outer diaphragm ring;
an inner diaphragm ring;
an annulus of static nozzle blades between the inner
diaphragm ring and the outer diaphragm ring, each static nozzle
blade comprising:
an airfoil;
an inner sidewall integral with a first side of the
airfoil; and
an outer sidewall integral with a second side of the
airfoil;
the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall each
including:
a pressure side having an arcuate concave
surface extending substantially an entire length of
the sidewall; and
a trailing surface having an arcuate convex
surface extending substantially the entire length of
the sidewall;
wherein at least one of the static nozzle blades is
demountably attached to a second one of the static nozzle
blades; and
a pair of weld joints substantially affixing the at least one
static nozzle blade to each of the outer diaphragm ring and the
inner diaphragm ring,
wherein the at least one static nozzle blade is
substantially affixed to each of the outer diaphragm ring and the
inner diaphragm ring by only the pair of weld joints,
2
Appeal2014-007298
Application 12/706, 198
wherein the pair of weld joints substantially maintains an
axial position of the at least one static nozzle blade, wherein the
at least one of the static nozzle blades is demountably attached
to the second one of the static nozzle blades in the axial
direction,
wherein the annulus of static nozzle blades allows for
axial removal of the at least one of the static nozzle blades
without substantially disturbing a pair of weld joints
substantially affixing the second one of the static nozzle blades
to each of the outer diaphragm ring and the inner diaphragm
ring,
wherein the second one of the static nozzle blades is
adjacent the at least one of the static nozzle blades.
Appeal Br. 12-13 (Claims App.).
REJECTION2
Claims 7-10, 14--17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Burdgick (US 2007 /0166151 Al, pub. July 19,
2007) and Rosman (US 4,639,189, iss. January 27, 1987). Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
Claims 7-10, 14-17, 19, and 21
The Examiner finds that Burdgick discloses, inter alia, a turbine
assembly comprising an inner ring 60, an outer ring 62, and an annulus of
static nozzle blades 40 between the inner and outer rings, each static nozzle
blade including an airfoil 42, an inner side wall 44, and an outer side wall
46, each side wall having "a pressure side (fig. 6, view facing pressure side)
and a trailing surface (fig. 6, view from opposite side of fig. 6)." Final Act.
2 Following cancellation of claims 24--27, the Final Action's rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are rendered moot despite the rejections not being
indicated as withdrawn by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 6; Ans. 1-2.
3
Appeal2014-007298
Application 12/706, 198
6. The Examiner also finds that Burdgick discloses that only weld joints
substantially affix the static nozzle blades to the inner and outer rings, the
welds providing support in the axial direction for the static nozzle blade. Id.
at 6-7 (citing Burdgick i-fi-f 17, 18).
The Examiner finds that Burdgick fails to disclose: (1) a pressure side
having an arcuate concave surface; (2) a trailing surface having an arcuate
convex surface; and (3) a static nozzle blade being demountably attached to
an adjacent static nozzle blade, wherein the contours of the pressure and
trailing sidewall surfaces do not provide axial support for the blade. Final
Act. 7. The Examiner finds, however, that Rosman discloses a pressure side
having an arcuate concave surface 42, a trailing surface having an arcuate
convex surface, and a static nozzle blade demountably attached to an
adjacent static nozzle blade. Id. (citing Rosman 4:35-55 and Figs. 2, 3, 6).
According to the Examiner, the contours of Rosman's pressure and trailing
sidewall surfaces do not provide axial support for the static nozzle blade. Id.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to apply Rosman's
arcuate concave and convex sidewalls to Burdgick's static nozzle blade 40,
because "Rosman teaches the incorporation of arcuate sidewalls to allow
individual vanes to be able to move with respect to each other (col. 4, 11. 35-
55), which ... would allow [Burdgick's] vanes to be removed without
disturbing adjacent vanes." Id. at 7-8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed combination of
Burdgick and Rosman would still not allow axial removal of a static nozzle
blade without "substantially disturbing a pair of weld joints substantially
affixing" an adjacent static nozzle blade to the inner and outer rings. Appeal
4
Appeal2014-007298
Application 12/706, 198
Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, Burdgick's "angled interface
configuration ... helps to maintain an axial position of the ... static nozzle
blade," such that both Burdgick's welds and its angled interface axially
retain each blade and prevent removal of one blade without disturbing the
welds of an adjacent blade. Appeal Br. 7-8.
Appellants also argue that Rosman does not teach weld joints, and
therefore cannot disclose the ability to axially remove its blades without
disturbing weld joints of adjacent blades. Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner responds that Burdgick, rather than Rosman, is relied
on to disclose welds, and Rosman is relied on to teach a static nozzle blade
that is demountably attached to an adjacent static nozzle blade in the axial
direction, by virtue of its complementary arcuate sides 42 (shown in Figure
6). Ans. 2-3. The Examiner maintains that shaping Burdgick's side walls
44, 46 like Rosman's arcuate sides 42 would allow for axial removal of
Burdgick's static nozzle blades without disturbing the weld joints of an
adjacent static nozzle blade. Id. at 3. The Examiner points out that Rosman
teaches that its arcuate sidewalls allow individual blades to be movable with
respect to each other. Ans. 4 (citing Rosman 4:46-55).
We agree with the Examiner. Given the disclosure cited by the
Examiner, and lacking any explanation by Appellants to the contrary,
modifying Burdgick's side walls to have the arcuate shape taught by
Rosman would, as Rosman discloses, allow the individual blades of
Burdgick to be movable with respect to each other. Thus, a static nozzle
blade of Burdgick, modified with Rosman's arcuate shape, would be
substantially affixed to the inner and outer diaphragm rings via weld joints.
5
Appeal2014-007298
Application 12/706, 198
Removal of weld joints for a given static nozzle blade would permit removal
of that blade without disturbing an adjacent blade (including the adjacent
blade's weld joints).
Appellants also argue that Burdgick and Rosman do not "contemplate
the problem which Appellants' claims address" and lack a rationale to
modify Burdgick's sidewalls to allow removal of blades without disturbing
adjacent blades -Rosman's blades instead being designed to prevent
uneven distribution of flow due to thermal expansion. Appeal Br. 8-9
(citing Rosman 2:23--41, Fig. 2).
The Examiner responds that it is Rosman's hollow blade core that
minimizes thermal stresses, which is not relevant to the reason for modifying
Burdgick's blade sidewalls to have the arcuate complementary shape of
Rosman' s side walls. Relative to the arcuate shape of its side walls, Rosman
teaches that its blades can be "stacked in an annular fashion about the
centerline of the turbo-compressor 10 as shown in figs. 2 and 3 while
permitting individual groups of vanes to move relative to adjacent vanes 20,
as a result of their arcuate sides 42." Ans. 4.
Given Rosman' s teaching that the arcuate shape of its side walls
allows individual groups of vanes to move relative to adjacent vanes, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner's rationale for modifying Burdgick with
Rosman is unreasonable.
Claim 20
Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed combination of
Burdgick and Rosman fails to teach the recitation in claim 20 of "the
removably affixed static nozzle blade [being] substantially affixed to the one
6
Appeal2014-007298
Application 12/706, 198
of the inner diaphragm ring or the outer diaphragm ring by only the pair of
weld joints." Appeal Br. 9-10. This argument appears to be based on
Appellants' above argument that the references fail to teach or suggest an
annulus of nozzle blades allowing axial removal of a nozzle blade without
disturbing a pair of weld joints affixing an adjacent nozzle blade. For the
reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by this argument.
Conclusion
We sustain the pending rejection for the reasons set forth above.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 7-10, 14--17, and 19-21under35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Burdgick and Rosman.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7