Ex Parte Hardwicke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12651817 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/651,817 01/04/2010 Canan Uslu Hardwicke
52082 7590 10/03/2016
General Electric Company
GE Global Patent Operation
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
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.
226080-1 9943
EXAMINER
FLORES, JUAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CANAN USLU HARDWICKE
Appeal2014-006660
Application 12/651,817
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22. Final Act. 1 (Final
Office Action Summary). Claims 2 and 10 have been canceled. App. Br. 8,
9 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-006660
Application 12/651,817
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to the art of turbomachines and,
more particularly, to a patterned turbomachine component and a method of
forming a pattern on a turbomachine component." Spec. ,-r 1. Claims 1, 9,
and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of forming patterns on a turbomachine
component, the method comprising:
adding material to selected surf ace regions of the
turbomachine component using a direct write (DW) process, the
material being arranged in a predetermined pattern of one or
more raised elements configured and disposed to enhance
aerodynamic performance of the turbomachine component.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Marentic et al. US 5,069,403
("Maren tic")
Rutkowski et al. US 2005/0013926 Al
("Rutkowski")
Lau et al. US 2005/0164027 Al
("Lau")
Merrill et al. US 2008/0274336 Al
("Merrill")
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Dec. 3, 1991
Jan.20,2005
July 28, 2005
Nov. 6, 2008
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rutkowski and Marentic.
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rutkowski, Marentic, and Merrill.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rutkowski, Marentic, and Lau.
2
Appeal2014-006660
Application 12/651,817
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19
as unpatentable over Rutkowski and Marentic
Appellant argues claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 together.
App. Br. 4---6. We select independent claim 1 for review with the remaining
claims standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Rutkowski for
disclosing the limitations of claim 1, but recognizes that "Rutkowski does
not teach [that] the one or more raised elements [are] configured and
disposed to enhance aerodynamic performance of the turbo machine
component." Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on the teachings of
Marentic for this. Final Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner notes that
"Marentic teaches a conformable drag reduction article having a patterned
surface [that is] capable of reducing drag resistance." Final Act. 3
(referencing Marentic Abstract and Figs. 1-9). The Examiner additionally
notes that "Marentic further teaches [that] relatively small reductions [in]
drag could significantly reduce the energy needed to propel a body." Final
Act. 3 (referencing Marentic 1: 16-18). The Examiner thus concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Rutkowski by disposing "one or more
raised elements to enhance aerodynamic performance" as taught by Marentic
since this would make the overall system "work more efficiently." Final
Act. 3; see also Ans. 11.
Appellant acknowledges that Rutkowski employs "a robotic pen to
deposit a material" onto a surface but, because Rutkowski describes this as
"'writing' a line upon a work piece," argues that "[t]here is no teaching or
suggestion that the line is a 'raised element"' as recited. App. Br. 4; see also
id. at 7. In other words, "Appellant respectfully submits that the line(s)
3
Appeal2014-006660
Application 12/651,817
written by Rutkowski et al. are not three-dimensional structures" and that
they "would be so thin as to have no perceivable thickness." 1 App. Br. 5;
see also id. at 7, Reply Br. 2.
Rutkowski is directed to "ejecting a stream of material atop the
workpiece as the workpiece moves relative" to a pen. Rutkowski Abstract.
Thereafter, Rutkowski discusses "precisely controlling the width and height
of the material line being dispensed from the tip and written upon the
workpiece." Rutkowski i-f 34. Such "precise width and height [is]
determined by the flowrate of the dispensed stream." Rutkowski i-f 36; see
also Ans. 9. Rutkowski further teaches that "[t]he resulting line or pattern of
material enjoys precision location on the workpiece and precision of width
and thickness," and also that the gap between the pen and the workpiece can
be adjusted "which in tum accurately controls the thickness of the material
stream being deposited." Rutkowski i-fi-1 3 8, 41.
Because Rutkowski repeatedly discusses controlling the height or
thickness of the deposited material (see supra and Ans. 9-10), we are not
persuaded by Appellant's contentions "that the line(s) written by Rutkowski
et al. are not three-dimensional structures" or that they "would be so thin as
to have no perceivable thickness" (App. Br. 5). In short, we disagree with
Appellant that "[t]here is no teaching or suggestion that the line is a 'raised
element."' App. Br. 4.
It is further noted that claim 1 does not provide any indication as to
the amount of material to be added, or how high the "raised element" must
1 For example, Appellant contends that "the process suggested in Rutkowski
et al. [is] no more of a raised element than a line written on a piece of paper
using a pen or pencil. To suggest that a line is a raised element is an
unreasonable interpretation of the prior art." App. Br. 5; see also id. at 7.
4
Appeal2014-006660
Application 12/651,817
be, only that material is added. As such, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner's reliance on Rutkowski (and Maren tic) for disclosing this
limitation (and particularly a "raised element") is in error. App. Br. 4.
Appellant also contends that the combination of Rutkowski and
Marentic "does not teach to arrange raised elements in a predetermined
pattern to enhance aerodynamic performance." App. Br. 5; see also id.
at 7. However, Appellant does not dispute Marentic' s teaching of "a
patterned first surface to significantly reduce drag caused by fluid flowing
over the surface of a body." Marentic 2:7-11; see also Ans. 10 (referencing
Marentic Figs. 1-9); Marentic 2:39--45 (the invention is directed to
providing a "patterned surface" so as to "provide maximum drag
reduction"); id. at 4:65-68 ("[p]referably the article is positioned on the
substrate such that the patterned surface will provide maximum drag
reduction"); and, id. at 6: 13-15 ("[t]he patterned surface 12 may be provided
in-situ on the article of the invention (see FIGS. 1and2) or it may be
applied thereto as layer 18 to carrier 16 (see FIG. 3)"). It should also be
noted that Marentic teaches that, as regarding "the patterned surface, the
same or different material may be used as are used for carrier 16." Marentic
6: 16-18. Nor does Appellant dispute Rutkowski' s disclosure of dispensing
"a material stream in a desired pattern." Rutkowski i-f 1; see also Ans. 10
and Rutkowski i-f 14 ("writing with precision" "for any suitable purpose");
id. at i-f 17 ("for writing thereon any suitable pattern of material"); and, id. at
i-f 31 ("its ability to draw lines or patterns of any suitable form").
Accordingly, in view of the above teachings, we are not persuaded by
5
Appeal2014-006660
Application 12/651,817
Appellant that the cited combination fails to teach raised elements in a
predetermined pattern to enhance aerodynamic performance. 2
In summary, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19.
The rejections of (a) claims 6, 7, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over Rutkowski,
Marentic, and Merrill, and (b) claims 20--22 as unpatentable over
Rutkowski, Marentic, and Lau
Appellant does not present arguments regarding the Examiner's
rejection of these claims. See Appellant's Briefs. Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner's assessment that "[t]he appellant has raised no argument
regarding [these] rejections[s]." Ans. 11, 12. Because there is no indication
as to how the Examiner might be in error, we sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 6, 7, 14, 16, and 20-22.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22 are 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
2 Appellant's contention on this point is that the cited art "does not suggest
to one of ordinary skill in the art to direct write raised elements onto a
turbomachine component surface to enhance aerodynamic properties." App.
Br. 6. This is because one skilled in the art "would not be inspired to
modify" Rutkowski so as to affect aerodynamic properties since "[a] line
having no thickness would not affect aerodynamic properties." App. Br. 6.
Appellant's contention is not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra.
6