Ex Parte Knodel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2017

12998054 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2017)

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.
12/998,054 03/11/2011 Eberhard Knodel 5038.1090 3479
23280 7590 07/28/2017
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th Avenue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
EXAMINER
BLOSS, STEPHANIE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2017 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):
ddk @ ddkpatent .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EBERHARD KNODEL, HANS-PETER BORUFKA, and
HERNAN VICTOR ARRIETA1
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision2 rejecting claims 10-23, which are all of the claims
pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as “MTU Aero Engines
GmbH, a corporation having a place of business in Muenchen, Germany [.]”
Appeal Brief filed February 12, 2015 (“App. Br.”) 2.
2 Final Action entered July 31, 2014 (“Final Act.”) 2-11; and the Examiner’
Answer entered May 22, 2015 (“Ans.”) 2.
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to “a device and a
method for monitoring the service life of engines or turbines having a
compressor blisk and/or a turbine blisk.” Spec. ^ 1. “The word ‘blisk’ is an
abbreviated form in English of ‘blade integrated disk,’ which is composed of
the words ‘blade’ and ‘disk.’” Spec. ^ 4.
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative
claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15,3 which are reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (with disputed limitations in italicized
form):
10. A device for monitoring service life of an engine or of a
turbine having a compressor blisk and/or a turbine blisk having
blisk substructures, the blisk substructures including a blade
and a disk and, possibly but not necessarily, further including a
join region between the blade and the disk and a shroud, the
device comprising:
a read-in device for inputting operating parameters
measured during the course of engine or turbine operation, the
operating parameters including one or more of intake
conditions, rotational speeds, temperature in a gas channel,
temperature in a cooling air channel, pressure in the gas
channel, and pressure in the cooling air channel;
a stress calculator for calculating individual momentary
stresses of each of a plurality of the blisk substructures on the
basis of the measured operating parameters, the blisk
substructures for which the individual momentary stresses are
3 Appellants argue claims 10 and 16, claims 11 and 17, claims 12 and 18,
claims 13 and 19 and claims 15 and 21, respectively as separate groups of
the claims on appeal. App. Br. 4-8. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal,
we limit our discussion to claims 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). The remaining claims on appeal stand or
fall with their parent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
2
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
calculated including at least two of. the blade, the disk, and if
present, the join region between the blade and the disk, and, if
present, the shroud; and
a damage estimator for estimating the accumulated
damage to each of the individual blisk substructures caused by
the individual momentary stresses.
11. The device as recited in claim 10 wherein the blisk
substructures for which the individual momentary stresses are
calculated include the blade and the disk.
12. The device as recited in claim 10 wherein individual
momentary stresses are calculated for of at least two of the
stress conditions of: thermomechanical fatigue, creep, low-
cycle fatigue, high-cycle fatigue and hot-gas corrosion.
13. The device as recited in claim 10 wherein the damage
estimator operates as a function of damage tolerances.
14. The device as recited in claim 10 wherein the blisk
substructures include a shroud.
15. The device as recited in claim 14 wherein the individual
momentary stresses are calculated for the shroud.
App. Br., Claims Appendix 1-3.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants seek review of, the
following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 10-13, 16-19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Breitkopf (US 4,722,062
issued January 26, 1988) and Gotoh (US 2004/0148129 A1 published July
29, 2004); and
2. Claims 14, 15, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Breitkopf, Gotoh, and Loehle
3
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
(US 2008/0089788 A1 published April 17, 2008). Final Act. 2-11; Ans. 2;
App. Br. 4; Reply Brief (filed July 13, 2015) (“Reply Br.”) 2-5.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon by the Examiner and
Appellants in light of each of Appellants’ contentions,4 we find no reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 10-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of the above
claims substantially for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and the
Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
To prevail in an appeal to this Board, Appellants must adequately
explain or identify reversible error in the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012). In determining whether or not any
reversible error is present in the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections, we must
evaluate the prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in light of
Appellants’ arguments, taking into account “demands known to the design
community,” “the background knowledge possessed by a person having
ordinary skill in the art,” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person
4 Any new arguments raised in the Reply Brief, which could have been
raised in the Appeal Brief, will not be considered. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any
arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused
consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”); see also Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative)
(explaining that under the previous rules, which are similar to the current
rules, “the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could
have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s
rejections, but were not.”).
4
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
of ordinary skill in the art would employ[.]” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The background knowledge attributable to one of
ordinary skill in the art includes what was admittedly known in the art at the
time of the invention. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d
1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“A statement in a patent that something is in
the prior art is binding on the applicant and patentee for determining
anticipation and obviousness.”); In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71
(CCPA 1975) (The admitted prior art in applicant’s Specification may be
used in determining the patentability of a claimed invention.); In re Font,
675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (“It is not unfair or contrary to the policy of
the patent system that appellants’ invention be judged on obviousness
against their actual contribution to the art”) (footnote omitted).
I. REJECTION 1
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 10-
13, 16-19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner has relied
upon the combined teachings of Breitkopf and Gotoh. The Examiner finds
that Breitkopf discloses an apparatus and a method for monitoring service
life of an engine or a turbine (turbomachine) having a compressor blisk
and/or a turbine blisk made of a blade and a disk. Final Act. 1 and 5. The
Examiner finds that the apparatus taught by Breitkopf has (1) a read-in
device for inputting operating parameters, such as one or more of intake
conditions, rotational speed, temperature in a gas channel, and pressure in
the gas channel, measured during the course of engine or turbine operation,
(2) a stress calculator for calculating individual momentary stresses of each
of a plurality of the blisk substructures, e.g., a disk and a blade slot
5
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
corresponding to the recited joint region, and (3) a damage estimator for
estimating the accumulated damage to the individual substructures of the
blisk structure. See Final Act. 2-3 and 5-6; Ans. 3; Breitkopf, col. 1,11. 8-
20 and 37^17, col. 1,1. 64-col. 2,1. 3, col. 2,11. 33-57, col. 3,11. 25-39, and
col. 5,11. 18-57 and Fig. 5. The Examiner acknowledges that “Breitkopf
does not explicitly disclose that the stress calculator also calculates
momentary stresses on the blade itself.” Final Act. 3 and 6.
To account for this missing feature, the Examiner finds, and
Appellants do not dispute, that Gotoh discloses “a method and system for
diagnosing the state of a gas turbine in which the stress on high temperature
components [including the blade of the turbine] is measured [to determine a
remaining life time of such high temperature components]....” Compare
Final Act. 3 and 6, citing Goth ]fl[ 36 and 52, with App. Br. 4-6.
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to combine the measurement of the stresses on the blade, such as that
disclosed in Gotoh with the [apparatus and method] of Breitkopf in order to
create a more complete report of the potential [or remaining] service life for
the turbine blisk as a whole.” Final Act. 3 and 6-7.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Breitkopf
discloses an apparatus and a method for monitoring service life of an engine
or a turbine (turbomachine), wherein the apparatus employed has (1) a read-
in device for inputting operating parameters, such as one or more of intake
conditions, rotational speed, temperature in a gas channel, and pressure in
the gas channel, measured during the course of engine or turbine operation,
(2) a stress calculator for calculating individual momentary stresses of each
6
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
of a plurality of the substructures of a structure defined by a combination of
a blade and a disk and (3) a damage estimator for estimating the
accumulated damage to the individual substructures of such structure.
Compare Final Act. 2-3 and 5-6, with App. Br. 4-6. Rather, Appellants
contend that Breitkopf does not disclose a blisk structure as required by
claims 10 and 16. Appeal Br. 5. In support of this contention, Appellants
refer to paragraph 4 of the Specification, which defines the word “blisk” as
“an abbreviated form in English of ‘blade integrated disk,’ which is
composed of the words ‘blade’ and ‘disk’” and paragraph 5 of the
Specification, which discusses forming “blisks” by “machining the blade
profile from the outer contour of a forged disk or a disk segment, or by
permanently joining a blade, for example, by friction welding, to a disk or a
disk segment.” Id. (Emphasis added.)
The weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s holding that the
broadest reasonable meaning of the term “blisk” encompasses the bolted
blade disk construction taught by Breitkopf, i.e., bolting (joining) a blade
placed in a blade slot of a disk, as taught by Breitkopf. Ans. 3; Breitkopf,
col. 5,11. 38-50 and Fig. 5. The word “integrated” used in the Specification
to define the recited blisk has the meaning “[t]o make into a whole by
bringing all parts together” or “to join with something else[.]” See, e.g.,
WEBSTER’S II New Riverside University Dictionary, Copyright © 1984,
1988, 1994 by Houghton Mifflin Company, p. 634. Neither the ordinary
meaning provided in the Dictionary nor the definition provided in the
Specification limits the meaning of the word “integrated” to exclude a blisk
that is formed by joining a blade to a disk via conventional joining
techniques, e.g., bolting (joining) a blade placed in a blade slot of a disk, as
7
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
taught by Breitkopf. Spec. 4 and 5. Although the Specification also
exemplifies forming a blisk composed of a blade and a disk by machining
the blade profile from the outer contour of a forged disk or a disk segment
(one piece construction), or by permanently joining a blade to a disk or a
disk segment via friction welding as pointed out by Appellants, our
reviewing Court “has repeatedly cautioned against limiting the claimed
invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the
[Specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346 47
(Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 607 F.3d
784, 792 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A construing court’s reliance on the
specification must not go so far as to import limitations into the claims from
examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent’s written description
unless the specification makes clear that the patentee intends for the claims
and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive.”)
(Internal quotation marks omitted).
Even if we were to accept Appellants’ interpretation of the term
“blisk” as being limited to such exemplified embodiments, which exclude
the bolted blade/disk construction taught by Breitkopf, the outcome of this
case would not be altered. As is apparent from page 3 of the Answer, the
Examiner also determines that it is well within the ambit of one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ Breitkopf s apparatus or method to monitor and
calculate any momentary stress on the recited blisk composed of blade and
disk, which was admittedly known to be used in an engine or a turbine at the
time of the invention like the blade/disk construction taught by Breitkopf.
Ans. 3 (“‘the use of a one piece construction [composed of a blade and a
disk,] instead of the structure [composed a blade and a disk] in [the prior art]
8
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” quoting In re
Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965)); Spec. 4 (“Compressor blisks
and turbine blisks are used in modem engines.”) and 6 (“Depending on the
type of engine and the position of the blisk, the design of the blisk may also
include a supporting segment, which is also referred to in English as a
‘shroud’ and shown schematically as shroud 5 in Fig. 1. U.S. Patent
5,562,419 describes an example of a compressor blisk that is provided with
shrouds.”). This is especially compelling in this circumstance because
Breitkopf discloses that its method and apparatus are useful for “components
of complex geometry and of a disk-like basic shape, especially for turbine
disks [attached to a blade], in which a considerable amount of heat is
transferred both at the cylindrical surface and the lateral faces of the disk.”
Breitkopf, col. 2,11. 33-39. The components of complex geometry,
including a stmcture composed of a blade and a disk, taught by Breitkopf
would have been suggestive of a known blisk stmcture composed of a blade
and a disk used in the same engine or turbine environment.
Appellants also contend that there is “no factual support or reason to
modify Breitkopf to calculate any stresses on the blade itself.” App. Br. 5-6.
However, claims 10 and 16 do not require calculation of any individual
momentary stresses on the blade. Claims 10 and 16 only recite that “the
blisk substmctures for which the individual momentary stresses are
calculated including at least two of: the blade, the disk, and if present, the
join region between the blade and the disk, and if present, the shroud[.]”
(Emphasis added.) As correctly found by the Examiner and not disputed by
Appellants, “Breitkopf reference specifically states that stresses are
calculated for the disk (see Breitkopf[,] col[.] 5 [,] lines 32-34) and a blade
9
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
slot (see Breitkopf[,] col[.] 5[,] line 44) [that corresponds to the recited join
region].” Compare Ans. 3, with App. Br. 4-6 and Reply Br. 2-3.
Unlike claims 10 and 16, dependent claims 11 and 17 require
calculating the individual momentary stresses on the blade and the disk.
Although Breitkopf does not exemplify calculating the individual
momentary stresses on the blade itself, it does disclose that its method and
apparatus are useful for “[high temperature] components of complex
geometry,” including “a disk-like basic shape, especially for turbine disks”
as indicated supra in the context of an engine or a turbine. Moreover, the
Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Gotoh discloses “a
method and system for diagnosing the state of a gas turbine in which the
stress on high temperature components [including the blade of the turbine] is
measured [to determine a remaining life time of such high temperature
components]....” Compare Final Act. 3 and 6, citing Gotoh ]fl[ 36 and 52,
with App. Br. 4-6 and Reply Br. 2-3. Thus, we find no reversible error in
the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to measure or calculate the stresses on hot temperature components,
such as the blade and the disk of a known structure, such as a blisk, used in a
turbine, as suggested by Gotoh and Breitkopf, via using the apparatus and
method of Breitkopf, with a reasonable expectation of successfully assessing
the potential or remaining service life of all of the parts of the turbine blisk
which are subjected to high temperature stresses.
Appellants contend that the collective teachings of Breitkopf and
Gotoh would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate at least
two stress conditions selected from thermomechanical fatigue, creep, low-
cycle fatigue, high-cycle fatigue and hot-gas corrosion for at least two
10
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
substructures, e.g., a blade and a disk, as recited in claims 12 and 18. App.
Br. 7. However, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that
Gotoh “discloses calculation of stresses due to thermomechanical fatigue
(see Gotoh[,] paragraph[s] 0052, 0072, 0112), creep (see Gotoh[,]
paragraph[s] 0052, 0072, 0112), and hot-gas corrosion (see Gotoh[,]
paragraph[s] 0052, 0072, 0112).” Compare Ans. 4 with App. Br. 4-6 and
Reply Br. 2-3. Moreover, notwithstanding Appellants’ arguments to the
contrary, Gotoh, like Breitkopf, is directed to measuring such stresses on
high temperature components in order to determine their remaining life time
as indicated supra. Compare also Final Act. 3 and 6, with App. Br. 4-7 and
Reply Br. 2—4. Thus, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
calculate at least two stress conditions selected from thermomechanical
fatigue, creep, and hot-gas corrosion on hot temperature components, such
as the blade and the disk taught or suggested by Gotoh and Breitkopf, in
order to assess the potential or remaining service life of all of the parts of the
turbine blisk which are subjected to high temperature stresses and other
stress conditions.
Appellants contend that neither Breitkopf nor Gotoh teaches
operating the damage estimator as a function of damage tolerance as recited
in claims 13 and 19. App. Br. 7. However, as indicated supra, there is no
dispute that both Breitkopf and Gotoh are directed to determining a
remaining life time of high temperature components, such as a blade, a join
region and a disk. Implicit in this undisputed finding relating to the damage
estimation for determining the remaining life of a hot temperature
component taught by Breikopf and/or Gotoh is that such estimation is
11
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
ultimately a function of the damage the high temperature component can
tolerate or withstand before its failure (which reflects the remaining service
life of the hot components) as recited in claims 13 and 19. On this record,
Appellants do not refer to any definition or description in the Specification
that limits the scope of the phrase “a damage estimator as a function of
damage tolerance” recited in claims 13 and 19 to exclude a damage
estimator for determining a remaining life of a hot temperature component,
i.e., the damage or stress the hot temperature component can tolerate or
withstand before its failure. App. Br. 7.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-13, lb-
19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Breitkopf and Gotoh.
II. REJECTION 2
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 14,
15, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies upon the
combined disclosures of Breitkopf, Gotoh, and Loehle. Final Act. 9-11.
According to the Examiner, the disclosures of Breitkopf and Gotoh are
discussed in the context of Rejection 1. Id. The Examiner acknowledges
that Breitkopf and Gotoh do not explicitly disclose that the blisk
substructures include a shroud. Id.
To account for such missing feature, the Examiner relies upon the
disclosure of Loehle. Id. The Examiner finds that Loehle reveals that such
blisk having a shroud was well known at the time of the invention. Id. The
Examiner also finds that Loehle discloses the importance of reducing the
12
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
stresses on the shroud. Id. Implicit in this finding is that the shroud is
subjected to stresses, which affect its service life. Id.; Ans. 5.
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the apparatus and
method suggested by Breitkopf and Gotoh to monitor service life of an
engine or a turbine having the blisk structure having a blade, disk and a
shroud disclosed in Loehle, including the employment of Breitkopf s stress
calculator for calculating individual momentary stresses on the blade, disk,
and a shroud, with a reasonable expectation of successfully assessing the
potential or remaining service life for all of the parts of turbine blisk, which
are subjected to momentary stresses. Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 5
Appellants do not argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been led to monitor service life of an engine or a turbine having the
blisk structure having a blade, disk and a shroud disclosed in Loehle as
recited in claims 14 and 20. App. Br. 7-8. Rather, Appellants contend that
the collective teachings of Breitkopf, Gotoh, and Loehle would not have
suggested calculating any momentary stresses in any shroud as recited in
claims 15 and 21. Id. However, as indicated supra, both Breitkopf and
Gotoh disclose the importance of calculating or measuring any momentary
stresses of turbine or engine components subjected to stresses to assess the
remaining service life of such engine or turbine components. The Examiner
finds and Appellants do not dispute, that Loehle teaches that the shroud
component of the blisk structure of an engine or a turbine is subjected to
such stresses. Compare Final Act. 9-10 and Ans. 5, with App. Br. 7-8 and
Reply Br. 6. Thus, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason or
13
Appeal 2015-006790
Application 12/998,054
suggestion to calculate the momentary stresses on the shroud of the blisk as
required by claims 15 and 21.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, 20,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Breitkopf, Gotoh, and Loehle.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that 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