Ex Parte Dube et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

11197162 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 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.
11/197,162 08/03/2005 Bryan P. Dube 085.11565-US (05-235) 7309
52237 7590 06/27/2013
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2013 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 BRYAN P. DUBE and RANDALL J. BUTCHER
____________

Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-16. App. Br. 2. Claims 3 and 13 have
been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims; they are directed to “a
turbine blade having a platform provided with additional material for
reducing stress acting on the blade by distributing loads away from a
buttress portion of the turbine blade.” Spec. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced
below (with emphasis added), is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. A blade for use in a gas turbine engine
comprising:
a platform, an airfoil portion extending
radially from a first side of the platform, and an
attachment portion extending from a second side
of the platform;
said attachment portion including a buttress
which abuts said second side of the platform;
said second side including means for
redistributing load away from the buttress;
said platform having a leading edge and a
thickness at said leading edge and said load
redistributing means comprising a three
dimensional contoured configuration including a
first region having a first thickness greater than
said thickness at said leading edge and a second
region having a second thickness greater than said
first thickness;
said platform having a pressure side and a
suction side; and
said first region and said second region each
being located on the second side of said platform
between said pressure side and said suction side.
App. Br. 24, Claims App’x.
Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162

3

FINAL REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 10-12 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hockert (US 2,807,436, iss. Sep. 24, 1957).
App. Br. 6.
2. Claim 4-9, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hockert and Bussonnet (US 5,853,286, iss. Dec. 29,
1998). Id.
ANALYSIS
The “anticipation” rejection of
claims 1, 2, 10-12 and 16
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 12 separately, but make
essentially the same arguments for claim 12 as for claim 1. See App. Br. 16-
17; Reply Br. 2-8. As such, we select claim 1 for review with claim 12
standing or falling with claim 1. Appellants argue separately dependent
claims 2, 10-11, and 16, which we address in turn.
Claims 1 and 12
Claim 1 calls for “a buttress” on the second side of the platform and a
“three dimensional contoured configuration,” also on the second side of the
platform, for “redistributing load away from the buttress.” As further
claimed, the three dimensional contoured configuration includes first and
second regions of increasing thickness from the leading edge of the
platform. The Examiner found that Hockert discloses all the limitations of
claim 1. More specifically, the Examiner found that Hockert discloses a
buttress (labeled “52” in Fig. 2) that extends between the underside of
platform 50 and the first serration 63 (shown in Fig. 3) of the root or
attachment portion. Ans. 3. The Examiner further found that Hockert
Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162

4

teaches a three-dimensional contoured configuration that increases
progressively in thickness from the leading edge as well as the side edges of
the platform. Id. at 4. Elaborating further, the Examiner specified that the
contours in Hockert include, first, a flat-sloped fillet surface 67 (Fig. 4) that
extends from under the leading edge toward the root portion, and second, a
chamfered or beveled surface 83 (Fig. 2a) that extends from the fillet surface
67 toward the pressure/suction side edges 63, 64. Id. Notably, the Examiner
explained that “[t]his chamfered/filleted structure inherently distributes loads
toward the center of the leading edge root face due to the substantial
additional mass at a central location along the blade root and platform.” Id.
at 4. After careful review of Hockert, we discern no error in the Examiner’s
findings with respect thereto and deem Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
First, Appellants’ argument that Hockert lacks a buttress (App. Br. 13,
Reply Br. 2-3) is contradicted by Appellants’ own Specification which
describes a buttress as “extend[ing] between the neck portion 40 and an
underside 44 of the trailing edge of the platform 32.” Spec. [0003]. The
structure within Hockert that the Examiner identified as the buttress
coincides with Appellants’ description. Specifically, the Examiner found
that, while Hockert does not use the term “buttress” per se, it nevertheless
depicts a structural portion (labeled “52” in Fig. 2) that extends between the
underside of the platform and the top serration of the root/attachment
portion. Ans. 3, 6-7; see also Hockert, Fig. 4 (depicting the axial length of
the buttress wall) and Fig. 3 (depicting the leading end faces of the buttress
wall above each of the top serrations). We discern no error in the
Examiner’s interpretation of Hockert. As such, the Examiner correctly
found that Hockert teaches the “buttress” limitation of claim 1.
Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162

5

Appellants next assert that the structure in Hockert that the Examiner
considered to be the buttress is located along the pressure/suction sides, not
the leading edge, of the turbine blade. App. Br. 14. We disagree.
Appellants appear to misconstrue the Examiner’s position. While Figures 2
and 4 of Hockert show the axial length of the buttress on the
pressure/suction sides (63, 64), the Examiner made clear that the buttress
also extends around the leading and trailing ends “to define a circumferential
wall” on the underside of the platform. Ans. 7. Indeed, Figure 3 of Hockert
depicts the buttress wall above the top serrations on the leading end 65 on
each side of the root/attachment portion 52. Thus, the Examiner correctly
found that Hockert’s buttress extends not only along the pressure/suction
sides but also along the leading end of the turbine blade.
Third, Appellants take issue with the chamfers 83 of Hockert, which
the Examiner relied upon as directing stress loads away from the buttress.
App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants contend that “[a] chamfer is not an
area of additional material, it is an area of eliminated material.”1 Id. at 15.
We disagree. As the Examiner reasoned, Appellants “overlook the meaning
of ‘additional material’ in the context of the claims. The prior art would not
identify or label pieces already present in their structure as ‘additional.’”
Ans. 7-8. Thus, the Examiner found that the “additional material” limitation
is met, not by the missing material of Hockert’s chamfers, but by the mass of
material shown in Hockert as bounded by the sloped fillet surface 67 (Fig. 4)
and the beveled chamfer surface 83 (Fig. 2a). Id. at 8. We discern no error
in this finding by the Examiner. As such, Appellants’ argument that the

1 Claim 1 does not recite the term “additional material”; that limitation is
only found in independent claim 12.
Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162

6

chamfered structure in Hockert does not amount to “additional material” is
not persuasive.
Appellants next assert that the Examiner erred by failing to explain
how Hockert’s structure, including fillet 67 and chamfers 83, would “carry[]
out the claimed load redistributing function.” App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 6-7.
Contrary to Appellants’ assertion, the Examiner clearly explained that
Hockert’s “chamfered/filleted structure inherently distributes loads toward
the center of the leading edge root face due to the substantial additional
mass at a central location along the blade root and platform.” Ans. 4
(emphasis added). In other words, as the Examiner correctly found,
Hockert’s additional mass (i.e., filleted/chamfered structure) minimizes
stress “by its mere presence” on the underside of the platform between the
leading edge and the buttress wall. Id. at 8.
Indeed, Hockert expressly recognizes that the greatest stress loads
occur where the platform portion overhangs the root portion of the turbine
blade. Hockert, col. 1, ll. 27-34. More specifically, Hockert explains that
fatigue-type failures and stresses originate in the top serration of the root
portion and progress upward through the overhanging platform portion.2 Id.
at col. 3, ll. 27-44. In order to minimize such failures and stresses, as found
by the Examiner, Hockert utilizes the filleted/chamfered structure
underneath the overhanging portion of the platform. See, e.g., Hockert, col.
3, l. 45, to col. 4, l. 2 (eliminating stress risers by utilizing fillets 67 to
extend the ends 65, 66 “beyond the tapered faces 80, 81 of the wheel rim”

2 Notably, Hockert’s disclosure coincides with Appellants’ Specification that
“[t]he large overhang of the platform . . . create[s] a stress concentration
where the upper serration meets the suction side and pressure side
buttresses.” Spec. [0004].
Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162

7

and “by provision of chamfers . . . between the ends 66 and 67 and faces 63,
64 of the buckets roots”). Moreover, Hockert expressly states that, by
adding structure in the form of fillets 67 and chamfers 83, stress loads are
“removed from the end[s]” of the root and “concentrated toward the central
portion” of the root. Id. at col. 3, ll. 68-73. As such, we discern no error in
the Examiner’s finding that Hockert’s filleted/chamfered structure meets the
“load redistributing” limitation of claim 1.
Lastly, Appellants assert that Hockert’s fillet 67 “is a two dimensional
structure,” not a three dimensional contoured configuration as claimed.
App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5. Appellants again appear to misconstrue the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner did not rely solely on fillet 67 for the
contoured configuration; rather the Examiner relied upon both fillet 67 and
chamfer 83. Specifically, the Examiner explained that the contoured
configuration “includes a radial curve, i.e. the fillet surface (67), and two
axial slopes, i.e. the chamfers (83). Taken together such surfaces define a
three dimensional surface.” Ans. 9. In other words, as shown by Hockert,
the fillet surface extends along an x-y plane while the chamfer surface
extends at a 45 degree angle between the x-y and y-z planes, thereby
evincing a three-dimensional contoured configuration. See Hockert, Figs. 2a
and 4. Moreover, as the Examiner correctly found, the filleted surface
increases in thickness from underneath the platform’s leading edge toward
the root’s buttress wall, thereby meeting the “first region” and “second
region” limitations of claim 1. See Ans. 4, 9.
For the foregoing reasons, we discern no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not raise any additional arguments with
respect to claim 12 that have not already been addressed above for claim 1.
Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162

8

As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 as being anticipated by
Hockert.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites “means for directing the load outwardly towards a
center of a leading edge root face.” Appellants’ Specification describes this
function as being performed by the additional material. Spec. [0018]. The
Examiner found that the chamfered/filleted structure of Hockert constitutes
additional material that “inherently” directs loading in the manner recited by
claim 2. Ans. 4, 9. We discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that
Hockert inherently performs the functional limitation of claim 2. Where the
claimed and prior art devices are substantially identical, the Examiner can
presume the claimed function to be inherent, thereby establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation or obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255-
56 (CCPA 1977). As the Examiner correctly found, Hockert’s
filleted/chamfered structure exhibits essentially the same three-dimensional
contoured configuration as the additional material of the claimed invention.
See supra at 4-6. Given that structural identity, “the PTO can require an
applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently
possess the characteristics of his claimed product.” Id. at 1255. On this
point, Appellants are silent; they do not come forward with any persuasive
argument or evidence to rebut the Examiner’s finding that Hockert
inherently possesses the characteristics of the claimed “three dimensional
contoured configuration.” See Reply Br. 8-9. As such, we sustain the
rejection of claim 2 as being anticipated by Hockert.

Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162

9

Claims 10 and 11
Claims 10 and 11 recite that the load redistributing means comprises
additional material located on the “second side” or “underside” of the
platform. As discussed supra, the Examiner correctly found the
filleted/chamfered structure (i.e., additional material) of Hockert is on the
underside of the platform. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and
11.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends upon claim 1 and additionally recites that the airfoil
portion is of the “overhung” type. Appellants argue that “Hockert does not
disclose such an airfoil portion,” asserting that the figures in Hockert show
that “the airfoil portions are not overhung at all.” App. Br. 18. The
Examiner found, however, that the express objective of Hockert is to
improve upon turbine blades of the overhung variety. See, e.g., Hockert, col.
3, ll. 18-19 (“the blade and platform portions overhang the bucket root as
exemplified herein”). Moreover, contrary to Appellants’ assertion,
Hockert’s figures 2 and 3 clearly depict platform portion 50 overhanging
root portion 52. As such, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding, and
accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16.
The “obviousness” rejection of
claims 4-9, 14 and 15
Claims 4-9, 14 and 15 recite first, second and third “regions” and
“points” that are “offset” relative to the central axis of the platform.
According to the Examiner, an ordinary artisan would have found it obvious
to offset the platform of Hockert from the longitudinal axis of the underlying
root and overlying blade portions as taught by Bussonnet, thereby resulting
Appeal 2010-007554
Application 11/197,162

10

in the platform likewise being offset from any underlying contoured regions
of Hockert. Ans. 5, 10. In disputing the Examiner’s obviousness rejection,
Appellants repeatedly contend that the Examiner failed to identify where the
claimed first, second and third regions (i.e., additional material) are found in
the references. App. Br. 19-22; Reply Br. 10-12. We disagree. The
Examiner clearly explained that the fillet surface 67 includes a radial curve
(shown in Figs. 2 and 4) and a chamfered surface 83 (shown in Fig. 2a)
which have “an infinite number of regions whose thickness is greater” than
along the leading edge and the pressure and suction side edges of the
platform. Ans. 4, 9. In other words, as seen in Figure 4, the area
immediately under the platform (labeled 67) increases in thickness in a
radial direction and, as shown in Figure 2a, the chamfered area 83 increases
in thickness in a circumferential direction. See Ans. 8-9. As such, we
discern no error in the Examiner’s identification of the first, second and third
regions in Hockert as corresponding to limitations found in claims 4-9, 14
and 15. Because Appellants make no additional arguments with respect to
the combined teachings of Hockert and Bussonnet, we sustain the rejection
of claims 4-9, 14 and 15 as being rendered obvious.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-
16.
AFFIRMED

Klh