Ex Parte Meier

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2013

10588538 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2013)

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