Ex Parte MeierDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 28, 201310588538 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/588,538 08/07/2006 Reinhold Meier 5038.1035 8360 23280 7590 10/28/2013 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 485 7th Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/28/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte REINHOLD MEIER ____________ Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Reinhold Meier (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6 and 8-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claimed Subject Matter Claim 6 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 6 is representative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below. 6. A method for joining at least two gas turbine components under dynamic load comprising: aligning the at least two gas turbine components relative to one another in an aligned position; joining the at least two gas turbine components together in the aligned position by an auxiliary weld; and welding the at least two gas turbine components using laser powder build-up welding to form a separate weld to join said at least two gas turbine components together. App. Br., App’x A at 1. References The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Lysholm US 2,200,287 May 14, 1940 Boetcher US 2,288,433 Jun. 30, 1942 Baumann US 2,492,833 Dec. 27, 1949 Stone US 2,662,277 Dec. 15, 1953 Pratt US 5,245,155 Sep. 14, 1993 Mega US 2004/0169022 A1 Sep. 2, 2004 Guo US 2004/0191064 A1 Sep. 30, 2004 Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 3 Rejections Appellant seeks review of the following rejections: I. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mega, Stone or Boetcher, and Pratt or Guo; and II. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mega, Stone or Boetcher, Pratt or Guo, and Baumann or Lysholm. SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. We designate our affirmance, however, as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). OPINION Rejection I – Obviousness of Claims 6 and 8 Claims 6 and 8 The Examiner concluded that the combination of Mega, Stone or Boetcher, and Pratt or Guo would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 6 and 8 to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that Mega discloses “joining two gas turbine components wherein the components (52, 56) are welded temporarily and which is then further welded [sic] a YAG laser beam[,]” but does not disclose “laser powder built-up welding.” Id. at 3. The Examiner found that Stone and Boetcher “show that it is well known in the art to bring the welding components together and provide an initial welding to hold the components together before filler metals are introduced to complete the Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 4 welding process.” Id. at 4. The Examiner also found that Pratt and Guo “show that it is well known in the art to weld gas turbine components with a laser powdered-up welding to join two gas turbine components together.”1 Id. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “adapt Mega with a filler metal to further weld join two adjoining parts after an auxiliary weld using a laser or electron beam welding,” and, in light of Pratt or Guo, “to further adapt Mega with a laser powdered up welding as a well[-]known method to provide the filler metals as they are welded via laser to join the turbine components.” Id. Appellant raises several arguments in response to this rejection. First, Appellant contends that Mega does not disclose that tip plug 56 is welded to blade tip 52 and thus Mega does not disclose “joining the at least two gas turbine components together . . . by an auxiliary weld” as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 5; see Reply Br. 2. Appellant asserts that the temporary weld “may simply be a pre-weld of the tip plug alone to improve the final weld” and any assumption that the temporary welding is a “joining step” is based “solely on hindsight and on the Applicant’s own disclosure.” App. Br. 5. We disagree. Mega is directed to a “method for plugging a hole on a tip of a gas turbine blade.” Mega, para. [0001]. Mega’s method includes two separate welds pertaining to each hole to be plugged. First, Mega explains that, “[a] tip plug is fit to a hole 55 which is formed on the blade tip section 52 on the blade main body 51. Simultaneously, the tip plug 56 is 1 The Examiner incorrectly referred to “Guo” as “Gou” during this discussion. See Ans. 4. There is no indication that Appellant understood the Examiner’s citation to “Gou” as anything other than a typographical error. Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 5 welded temporarily according to necessity.” Mega, para. [0032]. Several steps later, Mega further explains that [a]s a result, the welding track which is adjusted by the control device 9 coincides to a true shape of the tip plug 56 which is picked up by the camera device 5. The welding head 4 moves along the welding track; thus the predetermined tip plug 56 is welded in the laser welding operation. Id. at para. [0035]. As shown in Mega’s description of these two paragraphs, Mega does not explicitly state that the tip pug 56 is welded to blade tip section 52; rather, Mega simply states “the tip plug 56 is welded.” See id. at paras. [0032], [0035]. Even so, as reflected in Mega’s Figure 2, these two turbine components are clearly welded together. See id., fig. 2. Thus, in light of Mega’s full disclosure and use of the phrase “the tip plug 56 is welded” when showing that the tip plug is welded to the blade tip section in the second welding operation, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Mega discloses “joining the at least two gas turbine components together in the aligned position by an auxiliary weld” in paragraph [0032].2 Second, Appellant contends that there is no indication that the temporary welding is “an auxiliary weld” or that the subsequent welding is “a separate weld” as called for by the claims. App. Br. 5. Appellant asserts that the Examiner does not address the “separate weld language,” instead referring to “‘filler metal’ which is simply not in the claim.” Id. 2 Appellant fails to provide any support for his contention that the temporary weld “may simply be a pre-weld of the tip plug alone to improve the final weld,” and thus we do not find that position persuasive. See App. Br. 5. Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 6 As reflected above, claim 6 calls for two welding steps: (1) joining two gas turbine components together by an auxiliary weld and (2) welding the two gas turbine components using laser powder build-up welding to form a separate weld to join the two components together. See App. Br., App’x A at 1. We interpret the claim language, where necessary, giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The ordinary and customary meaning of “auxiliary” in this context is “helping or supporting.” Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (2001), accessed at http://www.credoreference.com/entry/chambdict/auxiliary (last visited: Oct. 14, 2013). The use of “auxiliary” in the Specification is consistent with its ordinary and customary meaning. See, e.g., Spec., para. [0006] (“According to an advantageous refinement of the present invention, the components to be joined are aligned relative to one another and are joined together in this aligned position by an auxiliary weld. Subsequently to producing the auxiliary weld, the actual joint of the components is established via laser powder build-up welding.”); id. at para. [0012] (“the two components are joined together at flanges 10, 11 by initially aligning components 10, 11 relative to one another and temporarily joining them in this aligned position by auxiliary weld 12”); see also id. at para. [0016] (describing the embodiment of Figure 2 and joining the aligned position of the two components “with the aid of an auxiliary weld 16”). In other words, the auxiliary weld helps by joining the aligned components prior to welding the components with the laser powder build-up welding. The ordinary and customary meaning of “separate” in this context is “different” or “distinct.” See, e.g., Chambers 21st Century Dictionary Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 7 (2001), accessed at http://www.credoreference.com/entry/chambdict/separate (last visited: Oct. 14, 2013) (defining “separate” as “distinctly different or individual”). Although “separate” does not appear in the Specification, its use by Appellant is consistent with its ordinary and customary meaning. See, e.g., Amend. (filed Sept. 3, 2009) at 2 (amending claim 6 by, inter alia, adding the phrase to “form a separate weld” to the “welding” step), 5 (responding to a rejection of claim 6 by asserting, inter alia, that Pratt “already has a device for aligning, and there is no need for a separate auxiliary weld step”). Accordingly, the claims require two welds: (1) an auxiliary (helping) weld and (2) a separate (distinct) weld. As reflected in the above discussion, Mega discloses an auxiliary (helping) weld in paragraph [0032] and a separate (distinct) weld in paragraph [0035]. See Ans. 4-5 (discussing the two welding operations of Mega). The Examiner’s discussion on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer addresses each of these elements of the claims, and, for the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Mega fails to disclose an auxiliary weld or separate weld. Third, Appellant contends that “there simply is no proper motivation or reason given for modifying the butt weld [of] Mega, which appears to work fine without a separate weld or a laser powder build up weld.” App. Br. 5; see Reply Br. 2 (noting that “the tip plug 56/tip section 52 connection of Mega would form a very narrow gap where it would be difficult to place powder and form such a weld”). The Examiner explained that Pratt and Guo disclose welding gas turbine components with laser powder-up welding. Ans. 4; see Pratt, col. 1, Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 8 ll. 10-15 (“The present invention relates to laser welding of gas turbine engine components and the like, and more particularly, to an improved single point powder feed nozzle for use in laser welding gas turbine engine components or other workpieces which may have a complex geometric surface contour.”); Guo, para. [0001] (“The present invention relates to fusion repair of gas turbine or jet engine turbine blades and, more particularly, to the use of YAG lasers to deposit Inconel 713 powder on a Z-notch wear surface of low pressure turbine blades.”). The Examiner found that “powdered up welding” was a well-known method to join turbine engine components. Ans. 4. We thus understand the Examiner’s rationale for the combination to be based upon the “mere substitution of one element for another known in the field,” yielding predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We designate our affirmance of the rejection, however, as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION so as to provide Appellant with a full and fair opportunity to respond to the thrust of the rejection because the Examiner’s rationale for the combination was not adequately stated as expressly as we have done so above. Claim 8 With respect to claim 8, Appellant further asserts that Mega “does not discuss how the asserted temporary welding occurs and the claim language of claim 8 is simply not addressed at all by the Office Action.” App. Br. 5. The Examiner responded to Appellant’s argument and further explained why the subject matter of claim 8 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 5-6. Appellant’s Reply Brief does not directly address the Examiner’s response. We find the Examiner’s Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 9 explanation persuasive for the reasons explained therein. See, e.g., id. at 5 (indicating that the rejection concluded that auxiliary laser or electron beam welding would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art). Rejection II – Obviousness of Claims 9-11 Claims 9 and 10 Appellant asserts that claims 9 and 10 would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would not have been obvious to use Mega’s disclosure of a “repair method” to join two rotor discs at axially extending flanges as required by the claims. See App. Br. 6-7; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant further contends that simply because there are different welds for gas turbines, does not mean that there is a reason to combine them or to use Mega’s repair method. Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner concluded that the subject matter of claims 9-11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that extending flanges for rotor discs were well-known in the art at the time of invention and that they provided an alternatively secured attachment to each other. Id. The Examiner initially concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Mega, as modified by Stone or Boetcher, and Pratt or Guo, with the rotor discs having an axially extending flange as such rotor discs are well known in the gas turbines which allow for alternatively secured attachment to each other. Ans. 4. The Examiner subsequently explained, in response to Appellant’s argument, that “it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Mega, as modified by Stone or Boetcher, and Pratt or Guo, to other turbine components.” Id. at 6. Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 10 In his Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that “there is simply no proper reason or motivation given for modifying Mega to provide flanges to the device of Mega.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s argument, however, is not directed to the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to apply Mega’s method to other turbine components, such as axially extending flanges, which are well known in the art. See Ans. 6. We agree that applying Mega’s method as modified to other gas turbine components, such as axially extending flanges, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because axially extending flanges provide another location for a secured attachment and we see no reason why Mega’s method need be limited to “repair” as alleged by Appellant. In other words, Mega’s method as modified in the rejection provides steps for joining two gas turbine components and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply it to join axially extending flanges because axially extending flanges are gas turbine components. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim 11 With respect to claim 11, Appellant asserts that none of the references disclose a “pool crater” as recited by claim 11. App. Br. 7. In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner identified a pool crater in the “figures of Baumann or Lysholm.” Ans. 6. We agree that at least Baumann’s figure shows the formation of a pool crater as found by the Examiner. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.3 3 Appellant’s Reply Brief did not respond to the Examiner’s identification of Baumann as disclosing a pool crater. Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 11 New Ground of Rejection The references relied upon by the Examiner for Rejection I are also relied upon for this rejection. In the context of Rejection I, we designated our affirmance as a new ground. The rationale for our designation equally applies to this rejection because the same references are relied upon by the Examiner and claims 9, 10, and 11 depend from claim 6. Accordingly, our affirmance of Rejection II is designated as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION for the same reasons we explained in our discussion of Rejection I. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6 and 8-11, and designate our affirmance as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . Appeal 2011-013469 Application 10/588,538 12 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation