Ex Parte Hunziker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2018

13525149 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2018)

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