Ex Parte Hunziker et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 201813525149 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/525,149 06/15/2012 226 7590 General Electric Company Global Patent Operation 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 05/14/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rolf Hunziker 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. 308607-2 us 7606 EXAMINER BROCKMAN, ELDON T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2018 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): gpo.mail@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 ROLF HUNZIKER and SAID HA V AKECHIAN Appeal2017-005744 Application 13/525, 149 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1, 3---6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kray (US 2008/0159868 Al, pub. July 3, 2008) and Schreiber (US 2008/0152506 Al, pub. June 26, 2008). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alstom Technology Ltd. Br. 2. Appeal2017-005744 Application 13/525,149 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A turbine blade, comprising: a root; a tip; an airfoil extending there between with a core section made of composite material; a protective sheath including a leading edge cover, a suction side cover, a trailing edge cover and a pressure side cover, the leading edge cover and the trailing edge cover each having recesses; an adhesive layer between the protective sheath and the core section; wherein the protective sheath is joined to the core section at least in an area of the airfoil exposed to erosion, the core section of the airfoil is continuous from a location in a vicinity of the root to a location in a vicinity of the tip of the blade and comprises a section which widens from the rotational axis along the length of the airfoil and which ends at the location in the vicinity of the tip of the blade; welding seams arranged in the respective recesses of the leading edge cover and the trailing edge cover and offset from the adhesive layer for avoiding thermal damage to the adhesive layer during a welding process; and an interference fit provided for the protective sheath by the widening section of the core section configured for preventing movement of the protective sheath along the core section in a radially outward direction. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Kray and Schreiber disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4---6. In particular, the Examiner finds that Kray's core section "comprises a section [that] widens from the rotational axis along the length of the airfoil and ... ends at the location in 2 Appeal2017-005744 Application 13/525,149 the vicinity of the tip of the blade." Id. at 2-3. The Examiner further finds that Kray provides an interference fit as claimed because "the sheath has an effective dovetail shape around the blade which [is] configured so as to prevent radial movement of the protective members radially outward because of the airfoil's larger chord size near the blade tip as compared to the blade root." Id. at 5. The Examiner reasons that "this fit may be considered an 'interference' fit; the airfoil MUST have an interference fit due to its expanding/contracting chord which is clearly evidenced in Fig[ure] 3 which shows leading edge curvature." Id. Appellants contend that Kray does not disclose a blade with a larger chord size near the blade tip. See Appeal Br. 6-7. In support of this contention, Appellants note that "although it could be underst[ oo ]d from Figure 2 that the blade has a much larger tip section [than the] root section, this conclusion is not supported by Figure 4 that depicts the same blade from a different perspective." Id. at 7. Appellants note that because the airfoil includes both twist and lean, one cannot ascertain comparative dimensional features from a two dimensional drawing when Kray is silent on that point. Id. Appellants also argue that even if the blade did have a larger chord length at the tip, it is not possible to ascertain the length of the sidewalls 162 of the cap 150, the guard 156 or the MLE 158. Therefore, it is not possible to discern from the Kray publication whether the alleged larger chord length (not mentioned anywhere by the Kray publication) of the blade was due to the core or the cap 150, guard 156 or the MLE 158. Id. In other words, Appellants argue that claim 1 requires a core section, which "widens from the rotational axis along the length of the airfoil and which ends at the location in the vicinity of the tip of the blade" (as required 3 Appeal2017-005744 Application 13/525,149 by claim 1) and it is impossible to tell from Figures 2 and 4 if the core section is widened. See id. Appellants similarly argue that even if "Figure 3 shows a portion of airfoil that clearly depicts the varying leading edge profile and includes a varying chord length including a larger portion near the tip" (id.), it is not possible to ascertain the length of the sidewalls 162 of the cap 150, the guard 156, or the MLE 158. Given these observations, Appellants conclude that There is no combination of figures and description that would lead one having ordinary skill in the art to the conclusion that the Kray publication reasonably discloses an interference fit provided for the protective sheath by the widening section of the composite core configured for preventing movement of the protective sheath along the core in a radially outward direction as recited in Appellants' independent claim 1. Id. at 8. Responding to these arguments, the Examiner notes that "Kray refers to a portion of the sheath 162 near the tip as having an apex 167 ." Ans. 2 (citing Kray i-f 17). The Examiner reasons that "if the sheath has an apex then there must necessarily be an increase in the chord of the blade at that apex of the curved sheath (apex is defined as 'the top or highest part of something')." Id. Based on this reasoning, the Examiner concludes that "[ t ]he interference fit is provided by the widening chord near the tip of the blade which Kray discloses .... If a structure has an apex then it must have 'a widening' leading up to that apex." Id. at 3. The chord is an imaginary line connecting the leading edge with the trailing edge. Spec. i-f 28. Kray describes an apex in the context of the radial length of the blade, not the chord length. See Kray i-f 17. Although, the Examiner is correct that Kray discloses an apex, that apex is not an apex with respect to the length of the chord. Thus, the Examiner's reasoning is 4 Appeal2017-005744 Application 13/525,149 not support by Kray. Given this flaw in the Examiner's reasoning, the Appellants' argument that Kray does not disclose the claimed interference fit . . . 1s convmcmg. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 3-6 and 8, and 9, which depend therefrom. Claim 10 requires the step of "providing an interference fit for the protective sheath by the widening section of the composite core configured for preventing movement of the protective sheath along the core in a radially outward direction." Claims App. 2. The Examiner's reasoning in the rejection of claim 10 is flawed for the reasons discussed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 10. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3---6, and 8-10 is REVERSED. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation