Ex Parte Mercier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

12417714 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
12/417,714 04/03/2009 Carl W. Mercier PA0008935U-U73.12-434KL 6975
12208 7590 01/26/2017
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
DUNIVER, DIALLO IGWE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2017 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):
U S PatDocket @ kinney. com
amkoenck @ kinney. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL W. MERCIER, DANIEL E. QUINN, DAVID J. HISKES,
PAUL M. PELLET, and MICHAEL L. MILLER
Appeal 2015-002086
Application 12/417,714
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Carl W. Mercier et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10—14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Andrews (US 3,981,786; iss. Sept. 21, 1976)
and Dansereau (US 6,106,204; iss. Aug. 22, 2000). Claims 1—9 and 15—19
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-002086
Application 12/417,714
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an electrode discharge
machining (EDM) apparatus “having a fixture for securing a workpiece that
may be a blade of a gas turbine engine.” Spec., para. 1, Figs. 1, 5 A, 5B.
Claim 10, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of
the claimed subject matter and recites:
10. An electric discharge machining (EDM) apparatus for
machining a workpiece, the EDM apparatus comprising:
an EDM head;
an electrode holder;
an electrode for creating a trailing edge profile of the
workpiece, the electrode shaped to a trailing edge profile
specification for the trailing edge profile of an airfoil; and
a fixture comprising at least one locator that relates to a
platform datum of the workpiece, and at least one locator that
relates to a leading edge datum of the airfoil of the workpiece,
wherein the fixture is configured to secure the workpiece with
respect to the EDM head so that a chord length of the airfoil is
maximized, and wherein the fixture does not contact the trailing
edge of the airfoil.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 10 calls for, in relevant part, “an electrode for
creating a trailing edge profile of the workpiece, the electrode shaped to a
trailing edge profile specification for the trailing edge profile of an airfoil.”
Appeal Br. 10, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Andrews discloses this
limitation. See Final Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner finds that Andrews
discloses “an electrode 4 for creating a trailing edge profile of the work
piece 2, the electrode 4 shaped to a trailing edge profile specification for the
2
Appeal 2015-002086
Application 12/417,714
trailing edge profile of an airfoil.” Id. (citing Andrews, 2:62—3:17, 3:29-38;
Figs. 1—3, 6).1 The Examiner further finds:
Andrews does teach of drilling holes into the turbine vane trailing
edge 18. . . . The [EJxaminer considers the “profile” of
Andrews’s workpiece to be contour of the trailing edge with or
without holes. Since Andrews teaches of a turbine vane with a
trailing edge profile starting without holes, a plurality of
electrodes with the contour or profile of the turbine van[e]
trailing edge, and of a turbine vane trailing edge profile with
holes drilled by the plurality of electrodes, it would be obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of [Appellants’]
invention that the trailing edge profile with holes meets the
Merriam-Webster definition of “a representation of something in
outline; an outline seen or represented in sharp relief: contour”
of the workpiece that has holes. Therefore[,] Andrews does meet
the recited language of claim 10 disclosing “an electrode for
creating a trailing edge profile of the workpiece, the electrode
shaped to a trailing edge profile specification for the trailing edge
profile of the airfoil[.”]
Ans. 5—6.
Appellants contend that “Andrews does not disclose the creation of a
trailing edge profile, but rather discloses drilling holes in a trailing edge
profile that has been previously created.” Appeal Br. 5—6. According to
Appellants, “[i]n Andrews, the trailing edge already exists, and holes are
being drilled therein. . . . [T]he electrodes in Andrews are all shaped to drill
holes, and not to [create] a trailing edge profile.” Id. at 6.
Appellants further contend that “[o]ne of skill in the art would
recognize that the ‘trailing edge profile’ is that which is consistent with the
drawings and contextual reading of the specification.” Reply Br. 3. In
1 The Examiner relies on Dansereau for disclosure of at least one locator that
relates to a platform datum and a leading edge datum of the work piece. See
Final Act. 3-4.
3
Appeal 2015-002086
Application 12/417,714
particular, Appellants contend that “[a]s illustrated in FIG. 5A [of the subject
invention], the trailing edge profile is the outline of the trailing edge [24]
that extends between the shroud 16 and platform 14” and “similarly, the
working profile 62 is illustrated in FIG. 5B [of the subject invention] as
extending between the shroud 16 and platform 14.” Id. at 2; see also Spec.,
para. 28.2 Appellants conclude that upon review of Appellants’
Specification and drawings “one of skill would realize that the profile 62
relates to the trailing edge defined as the profile between the shroud and
platform.” Reply Br. 2.
We acknowledge that Appellants’ Specification does not explicitly
define the term “trailing edge profile.” See Final Act. 2, 9; see also Ans. 2—
6. However, as correctly pointed out by Appellants, the Specification
describes that “[w]hen workpiece 10 is a turbine vane singlet or blade,
electrode 34 has a working profile 62 that mirrors the trailing edge profile of
workpiece 10.” Spec., para. 28 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2. We
agree with Appellants that upon review of the Specification and Figures 5 A
and 5B of the subject invention, “one of skill [in the art] would realize that
the profile 62 relates to the trailing edge [24 of airfoil 12] defined as the
profile between the shroud [16] and platform [14].” Reply Br. 2.
Additionally, we note that the Specification differentiates between
creating a “trailing edge profile” of a workpiece and creating “trailing edge
apertures” — i.e., holes — in the trailing edge of the airfoil. In particular, the
Specification describes: (1) “By controlling movement of electrode 34
relative to workpiece 10, EDM apparatus 30 can produce many desired
2 Appellants cite to paragraph 29 of the Specification. See Reply Br. 2. We
consider this a typographical error.
4
Appeal 2015-002086
Application 12/417,714
features, such as notches, apertures and profiles'1'’ (Spec., para. 23 (emphasis
added)); (2) “In alternate examples, the electrode may be a comb type
design, that is, contain surfaces for creating the working profile 62 [of a
workpiece] as well as projections for creating cooling apertures in trailing
edge 24 of the airfoil 12” (Spec., para. 28 (emphasis added); see also Ans.
5); and (3) “In other examples, electrode 34 may take a varying, non-linear
path during the machining operation, such as when creating both trailing
edge apertures [in the trailing edge of the airfoil] and the trailing edge profile
of a workpiece” (Spec., para. 29 (emphasis added)). Thus, according to
Appellants’ Specification, creating cooling apertures (i.e., holes) in the
trailing edge of the airfoil is different than creating a trailing edge profile of
a workpiece. See Appeal Br. 5—6
Andrews discloses that “[t]he workpiece 2 is shown, by way of
example, as a hollow turbine vane with a trailing edge 18 into which the
plurality of holes are to be drilled.'’'’ Andrews, 2:7—9 (emphasis added), Fig.
1; see also id., Title (“ECM AND EDM TOOLING FOR PRODUCING
HOLES IN AIRFOIL TRAILING EDGES” (emphasis omitted)). In other
words, Andrews discusses creating cooling apertures (i.e., holes) in trailing
edge 18 of the airfoil, which, according to Appellants’ Specification, is not
the same as creating a trailing edge profile of a workpiece. See Andrews,
1:1—40, 2:7—9; see also Spec., paras. 23, 28, 29; Appeal Br. 5—6. Because
creating cooling apertures (i.e., holes) in the trailing edge of the airfoil is
different than creating a trailing edge profile of a workpiece, we disagree
with the Examiner’s interpretation that “the trailing edge profile with holes”
(i.e., “a turbine vane trailing edge profile with holes drilled by the plurality
of electrodes”) of Andrews “meet[s] the recited language of claim 10
5
Appeal 2015-002086
Application 12/417,714
disclosing ‘an electrode for creating a trailing edge profile of the
workpiece.’” See Ans. 5—6; see also Final Act. 9; Spec., paras. 23, 28, 29;
Appeal Br. 5—6; id. at 10, Claims App. Consequently, the Examiner fails to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Andrews discloses an
electrode for creating a trailing edge profile of the workpiece, as required by
claim 10.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11—
14 and 20 as unpatentable over Andrews and Dansereau.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10—14
and 20 as unpatentable over Andrews and Dansereau.
REVERSED
6