Ex Parte Guo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

12037387 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/037,387 02/26/2008 Changsheng Guo
54549 7590 02/26/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
PA5087U; 67097-965
PUSl
CONFIRMATION NO.
3756
EXAMINER
WALTERS,RYANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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 CHANGSHENG GUO
Appeal 2014-001452 1,2
Application 12/037,387
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-15 and 20-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, the invention "relates to a method of
generating a curved blade retention slot in a turbine disk of a gas turbine
1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed Feb. 26,
2008), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Aug. 9, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 7, 2013), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed Mar. 11, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed Sept. 11, 2013).
2 According to Appellant, "[ t ]he real party in interest is United
Technologies Corporation." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-001452
Application 12/037,387
engme." Spec. if I. Claims 1 and 10 are the only independent claims under
appeal. We reproduce below claim 1 as representative of the appealed
claims.
1. A method of forming a slot in a turbine disk, the method
comprising the steps of:
forming a pre-slot in a turbine disk, the turbine disk including a
first face, an opposing second face, and an outer perimeter
surface extending between the first face and the opposing second
face, and the pre-slot includes a first curved wall and a second
curved wall that each extend between the first face and the
opposing second face, wherein a distance between the first
curved wall and the second curved wall defines a width of the
pre-slot, and the width is constant for an entire length of the pre-
slot and along an entire height of the pre-slot, and an intersection
between the outer perimeter surface with each of the first curved
wall and the second curved wall is defined by a curved line; and
then finishing the pre-slot after the step of forming the pre-slot to
form a slot that receives a portion of a turbine blade.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13-15, and 20-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Bamat (US 2009/0148296 Al, pub. June 11, 2009); and
claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bamat,
Yazdzik (US 5,430,936, iss. July 11, 1995), and Andrews (US 4,827,675,
iss. May 9, 1989).
See Final Action 2---6; see also Answer 2.
2
Appeal2014-001452
Application 12/037,387
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 10, Appellant argues that
the anticipation rejection is in error because "Bamat ... does not disclose
the step of 'then finishing the pre-slot after the step of forming the pre-slot to
form a slot that receives a portion of a turbine blade."' Appeal Br. 3. More
specifically, Appellant argues that
[t]he Examiner is calling the first part 88 of the initial form 30
the claimed pre-slot. However, the intermediate form 34 is not
"then finished" after the step of creating the first part 88 as the
Examiner contends. Instead, the intermediate form 34 is formed
after the entire initial form 30 (having three sections of three
different diameters) is formed. That is, the part 92 and the part
96 are formed after the formation of the part 88. The
intermediate form 94 [sic-should be 3 4] is not finished after the
formation of the part 88. The initial form 30 cannot be
considered to be a pre-slot of a constant width as there are three
parts 88, 92[,] and 96 each having a different width. As three
steps are needed to form the three parts 88, 92[,] and 96, it is not
possible to then finish the part 88 of Bamat ... after the step of
forming the part 88.
Appeal Br. 3--4. We disagree, however, with Appellant's arguments. We
conclude that the Examiner's findings that Bamat's part 88 discloses the
claimed constant-width pre-slot, and that Bamat's part 88 is "then finished"
after the forming of part 88 (notwithstanding the formation of parts 92
and 96 therebetween) as required by the claims, are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Answer 3, Final Action 2-3. Appellant
does not establish persuasively, such as by providing sufficient evidence or a
sufficient line of technical reasoning, that because part 88 forms a portion of
initial form 30 that also includes parts 92 and 96 of different widths, part 88
cannot teach the claimed constant-width pre-slot. Further, Appellant does
not establish persuasively that the claims require no intervening operations
3
Appeal2014-001452
Application 12/037,387
(such as the formation of parts 92 and 96) between the formation of part 88
and the finishing of part 88 to produce intermediate form 34. 3
For the above reasons, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10. Further, we sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 4--8, 13, 14, 20, 21, 23, and 24, which depend from independent
claims 1 and 10 and which Appellant does not argue separately.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 11, we agree with the
Examiner that Bamat's Figure 12 (see Final Action 4, Answer 4), which
Appellant does not address (see Appeal Br. 5), appears to disclose a cutting
tool that moves radially inwards towards a turbine-disk central axis as
claimed. We note that Bamat states, in relevant part, "with reference to FIG.
12, milling machine 14 may mill across axis A2, which is substantially
parallel to axis A, in a curved path C to form curved slot 42." Bamat i-f 29.
Thus, Appellant's argument that Bamat's Figure 1 appears to show cutting
tool 18 moving parallel to a central axis during cutting is not persuasive of
error. Therefore, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 2 and 11.
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 15, we agree with the
Examiner that Bamat's Figure 12 (see Final Action 4, Answer 4), which
Appellant does not address (see Appeal Br. 5), appears to disclose curved
lines defining a slot opening as claimed. Thus, we sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 9 and 15.
With respect to dependent claims 22 and 25, we agree with the
Examiner that part 88, which the Examiner characterizes as the claimed pre-
3 Thus, we do not agree with Appellant that the "recitation of 'then' in the
claim recites that the step of finishing occurs after the step of forming,
without intermediate steps." Reply Br. 2.
4
Appeal2014-001452
Application 12/037,387
slot, is illustrated as grooveless. See Final Action 5, Answer 4. Thus,
Appellant's argument addressing initial form 30, which includes parts 88,
92, and 96, as teaching the claimed pre-slot, is not persuasive. See Appeal
Br. 5. For these reasons, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 22
and 25.
With respect to dependent claims 26 and 27, we agree with the
Examiner that part 88, which the Examiner characterizes as the claimed pre-
slot, appears to be formed in a single pass of cutting tool 18. See Final
Action 5, Answer 5. Thus, Appellant's argument addressing initial form 30,
which includes parts 88, 92, and 96, as teaching the claimed pre-slot, is not
persuasive. See Appeal Br. 5. For these reasons, we sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 26 and 27.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 12, Appellant
argues, "[t]hese claims depend on patentable independent claims 1 and 10[,]
and are allowable for the reasons set forth above" for claims 1 and 10.
Appeal Br. 5. Inasmuch as we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1
and 10, we also sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 12.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 and 20-27
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a).
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) (2015).
AFFIRMED
5