Ex Parte DAVIDSON et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

14290076 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/290,076 05/29/2014 Dwight Eric DAVIDSON
13152 7590 09/28/2018
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
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.
269096/22113-0193 9653
EXAMINER
WHITE, DWAYNE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2018 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 DWIGHT ERIC DAVIDSON,
MICHAEL DAVID MCDUFFORD, BRIAN DENVER POTTER,
STEPHEN JOSEPH BALSONE, and STEPHEN PAUL W ASSYNGER
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The General Electric Company ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided
by 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Appellant and the inventors are identified as the real
parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosure "is directed to turbine components and turbine
systems. More particularly, the present invention is directed to turbine
bucket assemblies and turbine systems having one or more turbine bucket
assemblies." Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A turbine bucket assembly comprising:
a single-lobe joint having an integral platform, the joint
having a first axial length;
a segmented airfoil having a root segment extending
radially outward from the integral platform and a tip segment
coupled to the root segment, the tip segment having a second
axial length, the second axial length being less than the first axial
length; and
a turbine wheel defining a receptacle with a geometry
corresponding to the single-lobe joint and being removably
coupled to the single-lobe joint;
wherein the tip segment includes a tip segment material,
the root segment includes a root segment material, and the
turbine wheel includes a turbine wheel material, the root segment
material and the turbine wheel material having a lower heat
resistance and a higher thermal expansion than the tip segment
material.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
REJECTI0NS 2
I. Claims 1-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mazzola (US 2011/0217178 Al, published Sept. 8, 2011),
Pandey (US 2012/0051930 Al, published Mar. 1, 2012), Roberts (US
8,398,374 B2, issued Mar. 19, 2013), Roberge (US 2016/0215627 Al,
published July 28, 2016, and Smarsly (US 2011/0305578 Al, published
Dec. 15, 2011).
II. Claims 10, 11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mazzola, Pandey, Roberts, Roberge, Smarsly, and Flesch
(US 2012/0255176 Al, published Oct. 11, 2012).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I-Claims 1-9 and 12-16
Claims 1-9, 12, 13, 15, and 16
Appellant argues for patentability of claims 1-9, 12, 13, 15, and 16 as
a group, and presents the same arguments for claims 1 and 15. Appeal Br.
5-10. We select claim 1 as the representative claim; claims 2-9, 12, 13, 15,
and 16 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
As for claim 1, the Examiner finds that Mazzola discloses a turbine
bucket assembly, comprising a single-lobe joint having an integral platform
(root 32), a segmented airfoil having a root segment (inboard section 12) and
2 The Final Action states that certain claims of Appellant's application are
rejected on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting over respective
claims of co-pending U.S. Application Nos. 14/290,295 and 14/290,237.
Final Act. 3. However, both the '295 and '237 applications are now
abandoned; therefore, these rejections are moot.
3
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
a tip segment ( outboard section 14) coupled to the root segment. Final Act.
4 (citing Mazzola ,r 6, Fig. 3).
The Examiner finds that Mazzola fails to disclose a turbine wheel
defining a receptacle with a geometry corresponding to the single-lobe joint
and being removably coupled to that joint, as claimed. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner finds that Pandey teaches a turbine wheel (turbine disk 86)
defining a receptacle ( dovetail slot 88) with a geometry corresponding to a
single-lobe joint (dovetail 28) and being removably coupled to the single-
lobe joint. Id. (citing Pandey ,r 41, Fig. 7). The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious to modify Mazzola to use a single-lobe joint
coupled with a turbine wheel, as taught by Pandey, "which is standard in the
art and would yield the predictable result of removably securing the blade to
the body while allowing for some difference in thermal expansion." Id.
The Examiner also finds that Mazzola does not disclose that "the root
segment material and the turbine wheel material [have] a lower heat
resistance and a higher thermal expansion than the tip segment material," as
claimed. Id. The Examiner finds that Roberts teaches turbine bucket 100
including segmented airfoil 110 with tip segment 122 and root segment 124,
where root segment 124 material has a lower heat resistance than tip
segment 122 material. Id. ( citing Roberts, col. 4, 11. 19-22).
The Examiner finds that Roberge teaches a turbine bucket assembly in
which the root segment ( airfoil segment 266c) material can be a metallic
alloy, such as aluminum-based alloy, and the tip segment (airfoil segment
266a) can be a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite, such as a ceramic
matrix including silicon carbide fibers. Id. at 5-6 ( citing Roberge ,r 62, Fig.
4). The Examiner determines that selecting an aluminum-based alloy for the
4
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
root segment and a ceramic matrix reinforced with silicon carbide fibers for
the tip segment in Roberge would give the root segment a higher thermal
expansion than the tip segment, as claimed. Id. at 6.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify the
root segment material of Mazzola to have a lower heat resistance and a
higher thermal expansion than the tip segment material, as taught by Roberts
and Roberge, "because the use of multiple segments, formed of different
materials, permits localized material selection according to localized
conditions of a segment." Id. (citing Roberge ,r 59). The Examiner
determines that a segment of a component that will be exposed to
particularly high temperatures (i.e., the tip segment) during use as compared
to other portions of the component can be made of a ceramic material
(including composite ceramic material reinforced with silicon carbide fibers
or carbon fibers), whereas segments that will be exposed to lower
temperatures (i.e., the root segment), can be formed of a metallic alloy, such
as aluminum-based alloys. Id. (citing Roberge, ,r,r 59, 61, 62).
The Examiner relies on Smarsly to teach a turbine wheel material
(nickel superalloy) having a lower heat resistance and a higher thermal
expansion than the tip segment material. Id. at 6-7 (citing Smarsly ,r 10).
The Examiner determines that nickel superalloy has a lower heat resistance
than a ceramic composite reinforced with silicon carbide fibers. Id. at 7.
The Examiner submits that the selection of aluminum-based alloy for
the root segment material, nickel-based superalloy for the turbine wheel
material, and a ceramic matrix including silicon carbide fibers for the tip
segment material provides a root segment material and a turbine wheel
material having a lower heat resistance and a higher thermal expansion than
5
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
the tip segment material. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to further modify Mazzola to include a composite ceramic
material reinforced with silicon carbide fibers, an aluminum-based alloy root
segment, and a nickel superalloy turbine wheel, as taught by Roberts,
Roberge and Smarsly, because these materials provide "a bladed disk with a
fatigue resistant wheel for long service life and lightweight buckets to
increase efficiency." Id.
Appellant contends that the Examiner fails to provide a reason for
modifying the turbine bucket assembly of Mazzola to have a single-lobe
joint, as taught by Pandey. Appeal Br. 5---6.
We disagree. The Examiner reasons that a single-lobe joint is
standard in the art and would predictably removably secure the blade
(airfoil) to the body (turbine wheel) and allow for some difference in thermal
expansion in the combination of Mazzola and Pandey. Final Act. 5; Ans. 2-
3. Pandey describes, "[t]he dovetail 28 has a cross-sectional profile having
lands and grooves constructed in accordance with conventional practice."
See Pandey ,r 27 ( emphasis added). Dovetail 28 depicted in Figures 2 and 3
of Pandey has a single-lobe. We are not persuaded that the Examiner
incorrectly reasons that it would have been obvious to modify the turbine
bucket assembly of Mazzola to use a single-lobe joint for removably
securing the blade to the body. "The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416
(2007). Appellant has not provided any persuasive argument or evidence to
show that, despite the disclosure in Pandey that dovetail 28 is constructed in
"accordance with conventional practice," one of ordinary skill in the art
6
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
would not have reasonably expected success in making the proposed
modification to Mazzola.
Appellant contends that Roberts does not teach that the root segment
124 material has a higher thermal expansion than tip segment 122 material.
Appeal Br. 6. However, the Examiner does not rely on Roberts for teaching
that the root segment 124 material has a higher thermal expansion than tip
segment 122 material. Rather, the Examiner explains, "Roberts teaches the
limitation 'the root segment material having a lower heat resistance than the
tip segment material,'" and the Examiner relies on Roberge to teach the
claimed thermal expansion property. See Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 6
(citing Agilent Tech. 17, Laser and Optics User's Manual 2-3 (2002), and
Accuratus Ceramic Corp., Silicon Carbide Material Properties).
Accordingly, Appellant's contention regarding Roberts is unpersuasive.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner's reliance on Smarsly in
selecting nickel superalloy as the turbine wheel material is premised on
impermissible hindsight. Br. 6. Appellant contends that Smarsly discloses
that the rotor blade (turbine blade 14) is made of a titanium alloy, the rotor
base (rotor base 12) including pedestal 24 is made of high-temperature-
resistant nickel alloy, and an adapter element 18 is integrally joined to both
the rotor blade and pedestal. Id. at 7. Appellant contends that, in Smarsly,
by welding the adapter to both the rotor blade and rotor base, which forms
the turbine wheel, the rotor blade is not removably coupled to the turbine
wheel, whereas claim 1 calls for a single-lobe joint removably coupled with
a turbine wheel defining a geometry corresponding to the single-lobe joint.
Id. at 8. Appellant asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
7
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
incorporate the teachings of Smarsly in any combination of references to
attempt to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 8-9.
Appellant's contentions with regard to Smarsly are not persuasive.
First, the Examiner submits that a person skilled in the art would reasonably
look to Smarsly to teach a turbine wheel material because Smarsly' s material
provides desirable properties. Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 6-7. Second,
Appellant's contention does not address the rejection as stated. The
rejection relies on Pandey, not Smarsly, for teaching a turbine wheel that
defines a receptacle having a geometry that corresponds to the single-lobe
joint and which is removably coupled to the single-lobe joint, as claimed.
Ans. 4. The Examiner does not propose welding the rotor blade to the
turbine wheel in the combination. To the extent Appellant is contending that
the structures of Mazzola, Pandey, and Smarsly must be physically
combinable with each other, "[i]t is well-established that a determination of
obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an
actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically
combinable to render obvious the invention under review." ( citation
omitted)). We are not persuaded that the Examiner's combination, without
such bodily incorporation of Smarsly's welded structure, would not meet the
claim limitations.
Appellant further contends that Roberge merely lists materials that
airfoil segments can be formed of, but fails to identify which materials the
various components are made of. Appeal Br. 10 ( citing Roberge ,r,r 42, 59-
62). Appellant asserts the Examiner improperly attributes Roberge as
8
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
teaching that the root segment material can be metallic alloy, such as
aluminum-based alloy, and the tip segment can be a fiber-reinforced ceramic
matrix composite, such as one reinforced with silicon carbide fibers. Id.
These contentions are not persuasive. Roberge discloses:
[T]he use of multiple segments, formed of different materials,
permits localized material selection according to localized
conditions of a segment. Thus, a segment that will be exposed
to particularly high temperatures during use of the component
compared to other portions of a component can be made of a
ceramic material, while segments that will be exposed to lower
temperatures or require higher toughness, can be formed of a
metallic alloy.
See Roberge ,r 59. Roberge also discloses that "[i]f a metallic alloy and
ceramic-based material are used for two bonded segments, the metallic alloy
can be any of the alloys described above and the ceramic based material can
be ... composite ceramic material." Id. ,r 61. Aluminum-based alloy is one
of the suitable alloys described in Roberge. Id. ,r 60. Roberge further
describes that the composite ceramic material can be a fiber-reinforced
ceramic matrix composite including silicon carbide fibers. Id. ,r 62. As
such, Roberge discloses that a segment exposed to higher temperatures can
be formed of fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite, such as one
reinforced with silicon carbide fibers, and another segment exposed to lower
temperatures can be formed of aluminum-based alloy. The rejection is
based on root segment ( airfoil segment 266c) material being exposed to a
lower temperature than tip segment (airfoil segment 266a) material. The
Examiner relies on Roberts for teaching an airfoil comprising a root segment
exposed to lower operating temperatures than a tip segment and, in which,
the root segment material has a lower heat resistance than tip segment
9
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
material. See Final Act. 5. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner has improperly attributed any teaching to Roberge.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in
presenting evidence related to heat resistance for nickel superalloy and
silicon carbide fibers. Reply Br. 2-3. 3 However, as noted by Appellant, the
evidence is presented in the Final Office Action. Id. at 3; see Final Act. 6.
Thus, Appellant's arguments regarding this evidence do not seem to be
responsive to any argument raised in the Examiner's Answer. Regarding
this situation, 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2) states:
Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not
raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument
raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new
ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.
(Emphasis added). As Appellant has not shown good cause as to why the
arguments should be considered, we will not consider these untimely
arguments in this appeal.
Additionally, Roberge discloses that segments "exposed to lower
temperatures" can be formed of nickel-based alloy. See Roberge ,r,r 60-61.
Accordingly, Roberge discloses that nickel-based alloy, like aluminum-
based alloy, is a suitable metallic alloy for use in segments that will be
exposed to lower temperatures than segments made from composite ceramic
materials, such as composites including silicon carbide fibers. As such,
Roberge supports the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to
3 The Reply Brief does not include page numbering. We refer to pages of
the Reply Brief beginning with the first page as page 1, etc.
10
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
use a nickel-based alloy, as taught by Smarsly, in the turbine wheel
disclosed in Pandey.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner's rationale for relying on
Smarsly for teaching a turbine wheel made of nickel superalloy is premised
on impermissible hindsight because Pandey does not teach or suggest the
necessity of increasing corrosion resistance and fatigue resistance. Reply
Br. 3; Final Act. 7.
This contention is not persuasive. Pandey is not required to expressly
disclose or suggest a need for increasing corrosion resistance and fatigue
resistance of turbine disk 86 in order to modify this component in the
combination, as proposed by the Examiner. The Examiner reasons that a
person skilled in the art would consider these properties taught by Smarsly
to be desirable in the combination. Ans. 4. Appellant does not apprise us of
any error in this reasoning.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, of claims 2-9, 12,
13, 15, and 16, which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Mazzola,
Pandey, Roberts, Roberge, and Smarsly.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is directed to a turbine bucket assembly, comprising, inter
alia, "segmented airfoil having a root segment ... and a tip segment coupled
to the root segment," "wherein the tip segment includes a ceramic matrix
composite, the root segment includes a titanium aluminide, and the turbine
wheel includes a superalloy." Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). The heading of
the rejection lists claim 14 (see Final Act. 4); however, claim 14 is not
mentioned in the detailed statement of the rejection (see id. 4--8).
11
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
Consequently, the Examiner provides no findings or reasoning with respect
to the rejection of claim 14.
Appellant contends that the applied combination of references does
not result in the claimed turbine bucket assembly recited in claim 14.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues, inter alia, that the turbine bucket assembly
recited in claim 14 has a tip segment that includes a ceramic matrix
composite, a root segment that includes a titanium aluminide, and a turbine
wheel that includes superalloy. Id. at 13. We agree with Appellant that the
Examiner fails to establish that each of these limitations is taught or
suggested by the applied combination. For example, the Examiner provides
no finding that the combination either teaches or suggests the claimed "root
segment [which] includes a titanium aluminide," as claimed.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds to Appellant's contentions
regarding claim 14 by merely stating with respect to Appellant's "Ground 1"
and "Ground 2," "Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated
above in 'Claims 1-9, 12-13, and 15-16."' Ans. 7. However, claim 14
recites limitations that are not recited in claim 1, including, for example, a
"root segment [which] includes a titanium aluminide." As the Examiner has
not established that the applied combination meets all limitations recited in
claim 14, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14 as
unpatentable over Mazzola, Pandey, Roberts, Roberge, and Smarsly.
Rejection II-Claims 10, 11 and 17-20
For dependent claims 10, 11, and 17-20, Appellant rely on the same
arguments as those made for parent claims 1 and 15. Appeal Br. 15-1 7. As
Appellant do not apprise us of any error in the rejection of claim 1 or 15, we,
12
Appeal2017-010627
Application 14/290,07 6
accordingly, sustain the rejection of claims 10, 11, and 17-20 over Mazzola,
Pandey, Roberts, Roberge, Smarsly, and Flesch for the same reasons as for
claims 1 and 13.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-9, 12, 13, 15, and 16 as
unpatentable over Mazzola, Pandey, Roberts, Roberge, and Smarsly.
We reverse the rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable over Mazzola,
Pandey, Roberts, Roberge, and Smarsly.
We affirm the rejection of claims 10, 11, and 17-20 as unpatentable
over Mazzola, Pandey, Roberts, Roberge, Smarsly, and Flesch.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13