Ex Parte Kray et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201813492130 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/492,130 06/08/2012 Nicholas Joseph Kray 102216 7590 09/05/2018 General Electric Company Global Patent Operation-Aviation 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 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. 258344/ZS045-12017 1495 EXAMINER SEMICK, JOSHUA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3641 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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 NICHOLAS JOSEPH KRAY, DONG-JIN SHIM, and PRANA VD. SHAH Appeal 2017-011254 Application 13/492, 130 Technology Center 3600 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants' claims are directed generally "to apparatuses and methods for providing a mechanical interlock feature for multi-material airfoils." 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the General Electric Company. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-011254 Application 13/492, 130 Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A mechanical interlock for a multi-material airfoil, compnsmg: a first airfoil portion connectable to a rotor disk, said first airfoil portion being formed of a first non-metallic composite material; said first airfoil portion having an interlock feature extending therefrom; a second airfoil portion connected to said interlock feature of said first airfoil portion, said second airfoil portion extending from said first airfoil portion in a radial direction; said second airfoil portion formed of at least a partially dissimilar nonmetallic composite material. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Walsh Baldwin Cairo Clark Ryznic Parkin us 3,752,600 us 5,279,892 US 7,762,783 B2 US 7,794,210 B2 US 7,841,834 Bl US 2011/0052405 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Aug. 14, 1973 Jan. 18, 1994 July 27, 2010 Sept. 14, 2010 Nov. 30, 2010 Mar. 3, 2011 Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 13-16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Cairo, Parkin, and Baldwin. Ans. 2. Claims 4, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Cairo, Parkin, Baldwin, and Walsh. Ans. 5. 2 Appeal 2017-011254 Application 13/492, 130 Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cairo, Parkin, Baldwin, and Clark. Ans. 7. Claims 7 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cairo, Parkin, Baldwin, and Ryznic. Ans. 8. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects all independent claims over some combination of Cairo, Parkin, and Baldwin with other references added to address various dependent claims. Appellants argue only the rejection of the independent claims and do so as a group. See Br. 8, 9, 11. We choose claim 1 as representative and as such, all claims stand or fall with our disposition of claim 1. Appellants do not dispute the teachings of the references as used in the rejections, but only attack the Examiner's proposed combination. Br. 9- 11. According to Appellants, the Examiner's combination is incorrect because Cairo teaches only the use of a mechanical interlock with rotor blades that are entirely metallic, whereas the claims and the secondary references are directed to differing non-metallic compositions. Br. 10. Appellants assert that one of ordinary skill in the art "would not be motivated to modify the materials of the Cairo reference by changing to any 'non-metallic composite' materials" and that to do so would be to change the principle of operation of the Cairo reference. Br. 10. We first take issue with Appellants' characterization of Cairo as "focused on metallic materials." Br. 10. While Cairo does discuss exclusively metallic rotor assemblies, this does not mean that the teachings may only be applied to metallic rotors and not rotors in general. Nowhere 3 Appeal 2017-011254 Application 13/492, 130 does Cairo state that its interlocked, two-piece rotor blade is applicable only to metallic rotors, nor does Cairo disparage the use of composite materials in rotor construction. All that can be said of Cairo is that the disclosure is directed to the application of the concept of such interlocked rotor blades while doing so only in the context of metallic rotors. We do not consider this to be sufficient to amount to a change in the principle of operation by changing rotor materials. Ultimately, we see Cairo's teachings as being directed to the advantages of rotor blades having differing compositions at the base than at the tip to address the varying stresses found in rotor blades along the length of the blade. See, e.g., Cairo col. 2, 11. 23-30. Appellants further argue that one of skill in the art would not look to replace metallic materials with composite materials for the reasons stated by the Examiner because "a metallic turbine blade such as Cairo already has an airfoil shape and more than adequate structural stiffness." Br. 11. As the Examiner points out, however, the art of record, Parkin, "teaches 'in recent years composite materials have been replacing metals in gas turbine engine fan blades because of their high strength and low weight."' Ans. 11 ( citing Parkin ,r 1). Given that both Parkin and Baldwin (at Abstract and col. 2, lines 26-29) teach the desirability of constructing a non-metallic turbine blade having differing compositions from base to tip, similar to Cairo, we agree with the Examiner that another alternative manner of construction would be to employ the two-piece, interlocking structure of Cairo to achieve the advantages of easy blade replacement, etc., as taught in Cairo while also achieving the advantages of non-metallic materials as taught in Parkin and Baldwin. Regardless of Cairo's adequacy of material, the prior art is clear 4 Appeal 2017-011254 Application 13/492, 130 that composite materials offer benefits over metallic blades alone. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's combination. DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6-17, 19, and 20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation