Ex Parte Dupouy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2018

13582205 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/582,205 10/04/2012 Olivier Dupouy
22850 7590 05/30/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
403935US41PCT 3538
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, JONS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER DUPOUY, JOSE CHACON, PHILIPPE DESMARS,
GERARD HEYER, and JEAN-PAUL MENGUY
Appeal2017-001374
Application 13/582,205
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
The Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 12, 14--23, 25, and 26, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.," filed Apr. 25, 2016), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 2,
2016), and Specification ("Spec.," filed Jan. 2, 2015), and to the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 2, 2016) and Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Sept. 24, 2015).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party of interest is "SNECMA."
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-001374
Application 13/582,205
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' "invention relates to the aeronautical sector[,] and
more particularly to the sector for the manufacture of vanes for turbine
engines." Spec. 1, 11. 6-7. Specifically, the invention relates to "a device for
holding the blade of a vane of a turbine engine on the machining head of a
machine tool," i.e., "a mounting for locking in a machine tool." Id. at 3,
11. 10-15.
Claim 12 (Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.)) is the only independent claim
on appeal, is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and is
reproduced below (with added bracketing and paragraphing):
Claim 12: A mounting for locking in a machine tool a vane
of a turbine engine, the vane including a blade with a three-
dimensional form having a non-planar surface delimited by a
leading edge and a trailing edge; a platform; and a root adjacent
to the blade, for machining of the root, the mounting comprising:
[(a)] a stationary jaw configured to receive the vane and
including, defined thereon,
three points forming a first set of stops along a first
direction oriented perpendicular with respect to a center
plane of the blade,
two points forming a second set of stops along a
second direction parallel to a plane of the platform, and
a third point forming a third stop along a third
direction perpendicular to the first and second directions,
the first and second sets of stops and the third stop
defining a positioning reference system for the vane on the
stationary jaw; and
[(b)] a movable jaw configured to ensure, during
machining of the root, retention of the vane against the stationary
Jaw,
2
Appeal2017-001374
Application 13/582,205
[( c )] wherein the movable jaw includes a first clamp
provided on a surface of a movable member which moves along
a track, the first clamp exerts a pressure in a first direction, on
the non-planar surface of the blade, such that bearing points on
the non-planar surface of the blade abut the three points of the
first set of stops,
[(d)] wherein the stationary jaw includes a second clamp
which exerts a pressure in a second direction substantially
perpendicular to the first direction on one of the leading edge or
the trailing edge, oriented substantially in the direction of the
other of the leading edge or the trailing edge, such that the other
of the leading edge or the trailing edge abuts the two points of
the second set of stops.
REJECTIONS
Claims 12, 18-23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Andrews (US 3,981,786, iss. Sept. 21,
1976). Final Act. 2.
Claims 14--17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Andrews in view of Hussaini (US 6,000,681, iss.
Dec. 14, 1999). Id. at 6.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that the Examiner's rejection is in error
because, in relevant part, Andrews does not disclose the stationary jaw
having the three sets of stops positioned in the directions as recited in
limitation (a) of independent claim 12. See Appeal Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 4--6.
After careful consideration and review of the Examiner's findings and
reasoning (see Ans. 8-10; Final Act. 3), we agree that the Examiner does not
3
Appeal2017-001374
Application 13/582,205
show by a preponderance of the evidence that Andrews discloses this
limitation.
The Examiner finds that Andrews discloses a mounting for locking a
vane of a turbine comprising a stationary jaw including a set of three points
(24, 24, 26) perpendicular to a center plane, a set of two points (28, 28)
parallel of a plane of the platform, and a third point (comer of block 22)
perpendicular to the first and second directions. See Final Act. 2-3, 8,
Fig. A; Ans. 8-10. The Examiner further finds that
Firstly, the claim limitations which are drawn to a relationship
with a plane of the platform of the root are given very little
patentable weight. These relationships are made to a physical
element (i.e. the platform of the root) that is never positively
recited in the claims; it is only recited in the preamble of
claim 12. This amounts to language drawn to the intended use
of the claimed mounting jig. The question then becomes - is the
apparatus of Andrews capable of retaining a turbine vane that has
a root/platform in the z-direction? As shown in Fig. A [Final
Act. 8], the comer of the block 22 would be capable of abutting
a platform of a root of a turbine vane and prevent the vane from
moving further in the z-direction. Secondly, with regards to "a
plane of the platform", there are an infinite number of plane(s)
of the platform, being that any plane which intersected a part of
the platform would meet this limitation. Therefore, choosing any
plane that is parallel to the second set of stops that would also
intersect a part of a platform of a blade provided to the device of
Andrews would meet this claim limitation.
Ans. 10.
Andrews discloses a tool for drilling a workpiece, such as a hollow
turbine vane with a trailing edge. See Andrews col. 1, 11. 63-67. The
mounted workpiece is held in place by fixture 22 that includes two axially
spaced work engaging surfaces 24 and another chordwise spaced contact 26.
Id. at col. 2, 11. 7-13. Surfaces 24 and 26 are in contact with the convex
4
Appeal2017-001374
Application 13/582,205
potion of the vane, near the trailing edge. Id. at col. 2, 11. 13-15. "The vane
is held against these surfaces and against two axially spaced surfaces 28,
only one being shown, close to the leading edge of the vane by a movable
clamping element 30 engaging the concave surface of the turbine vane." Id.
at col. 2, 11. 16-20. "This element may be urged against the vane by a
clamping screw 32 carrying the element 30 and positioned in a bracket 34 on
the fixture 22." Id. at col. 2, 11. 20-22.
Although Andrews discloses three sets of stops for six stops total, the
Examiner does not adequately show how Andrews discloses that these stops
are oriented as claimed. Even assuming the first set of stops is oriented
perpendicular to a center plane of the blade as the Examiner describes in
Figure A on page 8 of the Final Action, the Examiner does not adequately
explain how the second set is oriented parallel to a platform of the blade.
Contrary to the Examiner's assertion (Final Act. 9; Ans. 10), the structure of
the vane in the preamble needs to be given patentable weight. The claim
language requires the structure of the vane, i.e., the platform, in
limitation (a) to provide a reference for the location of the stops in the
stationary jaw. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 323 F.3d 1332,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon
and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as
a necessary component of the claimed invention."). As the Appellants point
out, Andrews does not explicitly disclose that the vane has a platform. See
Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner does not explain, such that one of ordinary skill
would understand, what the Examiner considers to be Andrews' s vane
platform and how the axially spaced surfaces 28, i.e., the second set of stops,
are oriented parallel to that platform.
5
Appeal2017-001374
Application 13/582,205
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claim 12, and dependent
claims 18-23, 25, and 26. We also do not sustain the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claims 14--17, which rely on the same
inadequately supported finding.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 12, 18-23, 25, and 26 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is REVERSED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 14--17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6