Ex Parte Gallagher et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201714623605 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/623,605 02/17/2015 Edward J. Gallagher 67097-2875PUS5;76146US09 2900 54549 7590 11/30/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANDREW H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2017 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, LISA I. BRILLIANT, JOSEPH C. STRACCIA, STANLEY J. BALAMUCKI, MARK A. STEPHENS, and KATE HUDON Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision2 rejecting claims 1—6, 8, and 10-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated October 15, 2015 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An airfoil of a turbine engine comprising: pressure and suction sides and extending in a radial direction from a 0% span to a 100% span position wherein the airfoil has a relationship between a gap/chord ratio and span position that defines a curve with a gap/chord ratio of less than 0.80 from 80% span to 100% span, wherein the gap/chord ratio decreases from 80% span to 100% span. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chandraker (US 2003/0086788 Al; published May 8, 2003) and Chen (US 5,277,549; issued Jan. 11, 1994). II. Claims 1—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chandraker and Patel (US 4,900,230; issued Feb. 13, 1990). III. Claims 8, 10, and 12—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morin (US 8,246,292 Bl; issued Aug. 21, 2012), Rosen (US 3,747,343; issued July 24, 1973), Harvey (US 2011/0206527 Al; published Aug. 25, 2011), Hausmann (US 2,934,259; issued April 26, 1960), and Chen. IV. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morin, Rosen, Harvey, Hausmann, Chen, and Schilling (US 2008/0120839 Al; published May 29, 2008). 2 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 ANALYSIS Rejection I Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Chandraker teaches an airfoil comprising pressure and suction sides extending in a radial direction from a 0% span to a 100% span position, and also a gap/chord ratio decreasing from 80% span to 100% span. Final Act. 2 (citing Chandraker 132). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of Chandraker is “inaccurate.” Appeal Br. 4. First, Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to establish that “Chandraker’s gap and chord are from 80% span to 100% span.” Id. A preponderance of the evidence, however, supports the Examiner’s finding that Chandraker’s disclosure of “pitch/chord” (or a gap/chord ratio) is determined at spans between 0% to 100%, or from profiles of the along the blade from the hub (i.e., 0% span) to the tip (100% span). For example, Chandraker discloses that “[t]he profile faces [of a blade] can be specified by various ways; e.g.; through discrete points (x,y co-ordinates)” (Chandraker 131), and Figure 2 of Chandraker depicts “Stacked Profiles : Hub (1) to Tip (11).” Cf. Spec. 144 (“For airfoils having no outer platform, such as blades, the 100% span position corresponds to the tip 66”). 3 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 Figure 2 of Chandraker is reproduced below. Plan VIewi Figure 2 of Chandraker “shows the stacked profiles hub to tip of the blade of the invention,” thus, supporting the Examiner’s finding that the chord is determined at different points along blade’s span. Chandraker 19 (emphasis added). As determined by the Examiner, Chandraker further discloses that “the proposed blade is made of many such profiles . . . with varying shape and other parameters such as . . . chord (20)[3]” and that “pitch/chord . . . 3 Chandraker clearly differentiates between chord 20 (defined as “profile length joining leading edge (le) (23) to trai[l]ing edge (te) (28)”) and axial chord 21 (defined as “the projected length of the profile on X-axis (29)”). Chandraker 131 (emphasis added); see also id. 132 (“chord (20)[,j axial chord (21)”). 4 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 monotonously decrease[s]from hub to tip,” wherein “pitch” (i.e., gap) is “=27i r/no of blades; r=radius where the profile is located,” thus, supporting the Examiner’s finding that both the chord and pitch (i.e., gap/chord) are determined at different points along the blade’s span. Id. 132 (emphasis added). Moreover, this evidence supports the Examiner’s determination that Chandraker expressly recognizes a relationship between pitch/chord (i.e., gap/chord) and span (i.e., at 0% span (“Profile l(hub)”) to 100% span (“Profile 11 (tip)”). Chandraker, Fig. 2. Appellants also argue that Chandraker’s Figure 10 is a CAD view, to scale, and depicts “a blade having a chord that appears to be roughly the same along its span.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellants conclude that “[a]s such, there is no gap/chord relationship explicitly disclosed in Chandraker that would meet the claim 1 language of a ‘gap/chord ratio [that] decreases from 80% span to 100% span.’” Appeal Br. 5 (brackets in original). In addition, Appellants argue that Chandraker’s Figures 2 and 10 only disclose “the chord constant or decreasing . . . and the pitch increasing moving radially outward along the airfoil, [such that] the pitch/chord ratio would actually increase from hub (0% span) to tip (100%) span).” Appeal Br. 5. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Notwithstanding the depictions in Chandraker’s Figures, as discussed supra, Chandraker discloses a relationship between the pitch/chord (or gap/chord) ratio and the span (between the hub and tip), and further, provides express support that such ratio decreases from 80% span to 100% span, by disclosing that “[the] 5 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 solidity[4] * 6(pitch/chord). . . monotonously decrease^] from hub to tip.” Chandraker 132. The Examiner also determines that Chandraker fails to teach that the “airfoil has a relationship between ... a gap/chord ratio of less than 0.80 from 80% span to 100% span,” and relies on Chen for disclosing that “it is well known in the art that airfoils may comprise gap/chord ratios of less than 0.8 from 80% span to 100% span.” Final Act. 2 (citing Chen, Table 1). The Examiner also determines that Chen teaches the general conditions of the claim, as well as optimizing the gap/chord ratio “to achieve optimum blade loss and [to affect] flow separation and surface friction,” determining that “[discovering the optimum or workable ranges of gap/chord ratio would involve only routine skill in the art.” Id. at 2—3 (citing Chen 4:50—62; In re Alter, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1995)). Appellants argue that Chen “only discloses one value” in the claimed range of less than 0.8 from 80% span to 100% span, namely, “0.79 at the 100% span location or tip,” and that “[t]here is no explicit disclosure of ‘a gap/chord ratio of less than 0.8 from 80% to 100% span,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue that “the ‘general conditions’ are the opposite of the conditions being argued by the Examiner for the Chandraker reference.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3. 4 Although the Specification discloses that solidity is the inverse of the ratio of gap/chord, Chandraker discloses the solidity ratio as pitch/chord, which Appellants acknowledge is the same as gap/chord. See Spec. 149; Appeal Br. 4 (“Pitch is understood as the claimed ‘gap’”). 6 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 The relevant portion of Table 1 of Chen is reproduced below. ___________________ TABLE 1____________________ Parameter_______________ Base 35% Mid 75% Tip Pitch/Chord Ratio .52 ,61 .72 .77 .79 Chen 4:32—34 (Table 1). Table 1 discloses parameters “at five radial stations along [an] airfoil,” wherein all of the disclosed pitch/chord (i.e., gap/chord) ratios within a range of 0% to 100% span are less than 0.8. Further, Chen expressly discloses a value of .79 at 100% span (i.e., “tip”), which is within the claimed range of less than 0.80. Chen also discloses that “pitch to chord ratio [is an] important parameter[] in determining the performance of a row of blades since there is an optimum value . . . that will yield the minimum blade loss.” Chen 4:54—58. The Examiner has established that it is known to provide a gap/chord ratio within the claimed range (see, e.g., Ans. 3 (“[e]very value [of Chen’s pitch/chord ratio] is less than the claimed 0.8,” such that, upon reading Chen, the claimed range would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art)), and further, that the general conditions of the claim (i.e., a relationship between the gap/chord ratio and span of an airfoil) is disclosed in the prior art (see Ans. 4 (“the ‘general conditions’ of the claim”); Aller, 220 F.2d at 456 (“where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (citations omitted)); Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of 7 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 the art” and, thus, usually obvious (quotations, bracketing, and citation omitted)); see also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to impro ve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”)). As set forth supra, the prior art recognizes the variable (or parameter) of pitch/chord (i.e., gap/chord ratio) as result effective for airfoil design, and more particularly, the relationship of gap/chord ratio to span position and the importance of optimizing such relationship. See, e.g., Chandraker 132 (disclosing that “the proposed blade is made of many such profiles . . . but with varying shape and other parameters such as . . . chord,” including “[a] pitch/chord [that] monotonously decreasef s] from hub to tip,” wherein “[wjith such [a] configuration of the blade[,] the invention provides improvements in aerodynamic efficiency”); Chen 4:54-58 (“pitch to chord ratio [is an] important parameter[] in determining the performance of a row of blades since there is an optimum value of [the] parameter^ that will yield the minimum blade loss”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, absent evidence in the record to the contrary, discovering an optimum or workable range of a gap/chord ratio of less than 0.80 from 80% to 100% span involves only routine experimentation; in fact, Chen teaches at least one “optimized” value within the claimed range of gap/chord ratios. Moreover, the prior art discloses at least one value (i.e., .79 at 100% span) within the claimed range of “less than 0.80 from 80 % span to 100 % span,” as set forth supra. “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, 8 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original). Further, although the values in Chen’s Table I do not expressly disclose the pitch/chord ratio over the entirety of the claimed range from 80 % span to 100 % span, all of the pitch/chord ratios that are disclosed in Chen’s Table 1 along the blade from 0 % span to 100 % span (i.e., at 0 %, 25 %, 50 %, 75 %, and 100 % span), are less than 0.8, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals, 778 F.2d at 783. In sum, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to optimize the result effective variable, i.e., gap/chord ratio from a span of 0% to 100%, for an airfoil blade as disclosed in Chandraker (i.e., with a decreasing chord/gap ratio from a span of 0% to 100%), in view of Chen, to result in the claimed invention. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 over Chandraker and Chen. Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 2—5, and, therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—5 for the reasons stated supra. 9 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 Rejection II Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Chandraker for the disclosures as set forth with respect to Rejection I, and relies on Patel for teaching that “it was well known in the art that airfoils may comprise gap/chord ratios of less than 0.8 from 80% to 100% span.” Final Act. 3 (citing Patel, Table I). In support, the Examiner finds that Patel “lists several gap/chord (pitch/chord) ratios at several different spans, all of which are less than 0.8.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also determines that Patel teaches the general conditions of the claim, (i.e., “choosing pitch/chord ratios at different spans”), and that “[discovering the optimum or workable ranges of gap/chord ratio would involve only routine skill in the art.” Final Act. 4—5 (citing Chen 4:50-62; Alien, 220 F.2d at 456). Appellants argue that “Patel’s Table 1 does not explicitly disclose ‘a gap/chord ratio of less than 0.8 from 80% span to 100% span,” and also that “the ‘general conditions’ of Patel are the opposite of the conditions being argued by the Examiner for the Chandraker reference.” Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. Appellants submit that the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. We agree with the Examiner’s determination that Patel teaches that the claimed relationship is a result effective variable, because Patel discloses that the pitch/chord ratio is a parameter that changes from 0% to 100% span positions (i.e., from .25709 at 0% span to .78027 at 100% span), wherein one possible optimization of the pitch/chord ratio at span 100% is .78027, which is less than .80 as claimed. See Patel (Table I). Patel discloses that 10 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 “blades are designed and tuned in groups to avoid natural frequencies which coincide with the rotational frequency of the rotor to which the blade is attached,” and that “the dimensions of the [invented] blade” is disclosed in Table I, which discloses pitch/chord as a parameter varying from 0% to 100% span. Patel 3:1—3, Table I. Thus, the Examiner has established that it is known to provide a gap/chord ratio within the claimed range, and further, that the general conditions of the claim (i.e., a relationship between the gap/chord ratio and span of an airfoil) are disclosed in the prior art. Absent evidence in the record to the contrary, discovering an optimum or workable range of a gap/chord ratio of less than 0.80 from 80% to 100% span involves routine experimentation; in fact, Chen teaches at least one “optimized” value within the claimed range of gap/chord ratios. Similar to Rejection I, Appellants’ arguments do not address the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on Patel for disclosing that the relationship between gap/chord to span is known in the art as a result- effective variable, wherein the Examiner provides evidence that Patel also discloses at least one optimized value within the claimed range. In sum, arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning it would have been obvious to optimize the result effective variable, i.e., gap/chord ratio from a span of 0% to 100%, for an airfoil blade as disclosed in Chandraker (i.e., with a decreasing chord/gap ratio from a span of 0% to 100%), in view of Chen, to result in the claimed invention. Moreover, as with Chen supra, Patel discloses at least one value (i.e., .78027 at 100% span) within the claimed range of “less than 0.80 from 80 % 11 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 span to 100 % span,” as set forth supra, thus, anticipating the claimed range. See Titanium Metals, 778 F.2d at 781. Further, although the values in Patel’s Table I do not expressly disclose the pitch/chord ratio over the entirety of the claimed range from 80 % span to 100 % span, all of the pitch/chord ratios disclosed in Patel’s Table 1 along the blade from 0 % span to 100 % span (from 0 % span at K-K to 100 % span at A-A) are less than 0.8, and we note that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals, 778 F.2d at 783. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 over Chandraker and Patel. Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 2—6, and, therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—6 for the reasons stated supra. Appeal Br. 7. Rejection III Regarding independent claim 8, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Morin generally teaches the claimed gas turbine engine, except that Morin fails to disclose, for example, an airfoil having a gap/chord ratio of less than 0.80 from 80% to 100 % span, as claimed. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner relies on Harvey for disclosing that “it was well known in the art to optimize the design of an airfoil, including of compressor stators and rotors in order to provide optimum aerodynamic loading, as taught by Harvey,” and on Hausmann for disclosing that “it was also well known in the art that 12 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 compressor airfoils may be designed with gap/chord ratios of less than 0.8, as taught by Hausmann.” Id. at 5 (citing Harvey 88, 89, 105; Hausmann 1:34-40, 2:33—36). The Examiner further finds that “[i]t was . . . well known in the art that optimizing gap/chord ratio is necessary in order to yield minimum loss and affect loading, flow separation, and surface friction, as taught by Chen,” concluding that Chen discloses that the general conditions claimed and optimizing the gap/chord ratio relative to the span. Id. at 5—6 (citing Chen 4:52—62; Aller, 220 F.2d at 456). Appellants argue that “this rejection is improper for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to Chen.” Appeal Br. 7. However, for the reasons discussed supra, we determine that Chen is sufficient to establish that it would have been obvious to optimize the result effective variable, i.e., gap/chord ratio from a span of 0% to 100%, and Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been for an airfoil blade as disclosed in Morin to be modi fied in view of Chen to result in the claimed invention. Therefore, we consider Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s cumulative findings in Harvey and Hausmann, as applied to this claim limitation, moot. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8 over Morin, Rosen, Harvey, Hausmann, and Chen. Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 10 and 12—20, and, therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 12— 20 for the reasons stated supra. Appeal Br. 7. 13 Appeal 2017-000541 Application 14/623,605 Rejection IV Appellants argue that Schilling fails to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8 from which claim 11 depends. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. However, because we do not agree that there are deficiencies in the Examiner’s Rejection III, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 for the reasons stated supra. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Chandraker and Chen is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Chandraker and Patel is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 10, and 12—20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Morin, Rosen, Harvey, Hausmann, and Chen is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Morin, Rosen, Harvey, Hausmann, Chen, and Schilling is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 14 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation