Ex Parte Gallagher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2018

14624666 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018)

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.
14/624,666 02/18/2015 Edward J. Gallagher 67097-2823PUS10;75763US17 8759
54549 7590 02/09/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
ADJAGBE, MAXIME M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2018 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD J. GALLAGHER, BYRON R. MONZON,
LING LIU, LINDA S. LI, DARRYL WHITLOW, and
BARRY M. FORD
Appeal 2017-004144
Application 14/624,666
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-004144
Application 14/624,666
According to Appellants, their invention “relates generally to an
airfoil for gas turbine engines, and[,] more particularly[,] to the leading and
trailing edge sweep for a fan or compressor blade.” Spec. 12. Claims 1
and 27 are the only independent claims on appeal. Appeal Br., Claims App.
We reproduce claim 1, below, as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. An airfoil for a turbine engine comprising:
an airfoil having pressure and suction sides and extending
in a radial direction from a 0% span position at an inner flow path
location to a 100% span position at an airfoil tip, wherein the
airfoil has a curve corresponding to a relationship between a
trailing edge sweep angle and a span position, wherein the
trailing edge sweep angle is in a range of 10° to 20° in a range of
40-70% span position, and the trailing edge sweep angle is
positive from 0% span to at least 95% span.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1—7, 9—11, 13—18, 20, 22, 24, and 25 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting2 as
unpatentable over claims of U.S. Application no. 14/624,7743;
II. Claims 1—20 and 244 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Doloresco (US 2005/0031454 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2005) and
“an engineering expedient”5;
2 The Examiner “provisionally reject[s]” these claims. Answer 3.
3 U.S. Application no. 14/624,774 issued as US Patent no. 9,605,542, on
March 28, 2017.
4 Based on our review of the record, we agree with Appellants’
understanding that the Examiner’s reference to claim 25 is a typographical
error, and that it is, instead, claim 24 that is rejected based on Doloresco and
“an engineering expedient.” See, e.g., Answer 5, 9, 10; see, e.g., Appeal
Br. 3.
5 See, e.g., Final Office Action mailed January 21, 2016, 7.
2
Appeal 2017-004144
Application 14/624,666
III. Claims 21 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Doloresco, “an engineering expedient,” and Merville
(US 2014/0248155 Al, pub. Sept. 4, 2014);
IV. Claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Doloresco, “an engineering expedient,” and Wood
(US 2010/0260609A1, pub. Oct. 14, 2010); and
V. Claims 26—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gilson (US 2013/02219922 Al, pub. Aug. 29, 2013),
Doloresco, and “an engineering expedient.”
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
For the reasons discussed infra, we do not sustain any of the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections. We decline to reach the merits of the
Examiner’s provisional double-patenting rejection. See Ex parte Moncla, 95
USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Rather, we leave it to the
Examiner to determine whether to withdraw the rejection or whether a
terminal disclaimer would be required before the application issues as a
patent. See MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1).
Rejection II
Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner’s Final
Office Action and Answer, and Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief,
the Examiner does not support adequately the obviousness rejection of
claims 1—20 and 24 based on Doloresco and an engineering expedient.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims.
3
Appeal 2017-004144
Application 14/624,666
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, among other
recitations, that “the [airfoil’s] trailing edge sweep angle is in a range of 10°
to 20° in a range of 40-70% span position, and the trailing edge sweep angle
is positive from 0% span to at least 95% span.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner determines that
Doloresco does not specifically teach[]: the trailing edge sweep
angle is positive up to at least 95%; the trailing edge sweep angle
is in a range of 10° to 20° in a range of 40-70% ....
An engineer in the design phase of an airfoil for a
particular application would[,] as a routine practice[,] take the
steps to obtain a desired noise reduction, tip clearance[,] and
overall airfoil/blade efficiency that are based upon sweep angle
and dihedral angle.
Answer 6.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s determination is erroneous,
because
a skilled worker would have no reason to modify Doloresco’s
airfoil profile with the trailing edge sweep recited in independent
claims 1 and 27, as doing so would destroy [Doloresco’s] goal of
providing an airfoil with a “blended . . . stagger, dihedral and
sweep . . . resulting in a distinctive overall configuration and
corresponding performance enhancement” [see Doloresco ^fl[ 39,
40, 44],
Appeal Br. 5; see also id. at 4; see also Reply Br. 2 (“the Examiner still does
not provide any reason as to why [a] skilled worker would modify Doloresco
to provide the claimed features.”).
It is well settled that “[Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
4
Appeal 2017-004144
Application 14/624,666
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this case, Doloresco discloses an airfoil with a
positive sweep angle on a trailing edge from the root (0% span position) to
about the 80% span position, after which the sweep angle is negative.
Doloresco 140; see also id. at Fig. 6. This differs from claim l’s recitation
that “the trailing edge sweep angle is positive from 0% span to at least 95%
span.'''’ Appeal Br. Claims App. (emphases added). Further, Doloresco
clearly shows that the positive trailing-edge sweep angle is always less
than 10 degrees, and, more specifically, always appears to be less than 5
degrees. Doloresco Fig. 6. Conversely, claim 1 recites that “the trailing
edge sweep angle is in a range of 10° to 20° in a range of 40—70% span
position.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
In view of the differences between the claimed trailing-edge sweep
angle and Doloresco’s trailing-edge sweep angle, the Examiner’s statement
that “[a]n engineer in the design phase of an airfoil for a particular
application would[,] as a routine practice[,] take the steps to obtain a desired
noise reduction, tip clearance[,] and overall airfoil/blade efficiency,” and,
thus, provide an airfoil with the claimed trailing edge characteristics
(Answer 6), is insufficient to support the rejection. For example, it is not
clear how modifying Doloresco’s airfoil to have the claimed trailing-edge
characteristics would affect noise, tip clearance, or efficiency, or even if
modifying Doloresco’s airfoil to have the claimed characteristics would
affect noise, tip clearance, or efficiency at all. Conversely, Doloresco
discloses that its airfoil, in fact, is designed to “maximize . . . performance.”
Doloresco 124.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the obviousness
5
Appeal 2017-004144
Application 14/624,666
rejection of claims 2—20 and 24 that depend from claim 1, which the
Examiner rejects with claim 1.
Rejections III and IV
Claims 21—23 and 25 depend from claim 1, the rejection of which we
do not sustain. See Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner does not
establish that either Merville or Wood remedies the above-discussed
deficiency in claim 1 ’s rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 21—23 and 25.
Rejection V
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 26, this
claim depends from claim 1, the rejection of which we do not sustain. See
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner does not establish that Gilson
remedies the above-discussed deficiency in claim 1 ’s rejection. Thus, we do
not sustain claim 26’s rejections.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 27, as
stated by Appellants, the Examiner “rel[ies] upon Doloresco modified by
‘engineering expedient,”’ to render obvious claim 27’s recitation that “the
trailing edge sweep angle is in a range of 10° to 20° in a range of 40-70%
span position, and the trailing edge sweep angle is positive from 0% span to
at least 95% span.” Appeal Br. 3; id. at Claims App. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 27 for substantially
the same reasons we do not sustain claim 1 ’s rejection. Further, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 28—30 that depend from
claim 27, and which the Examiner rejects with claim 27.
6
Appeal 2017-004144
Application 14/624,666
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—30.
REVERSED
7