Ex Parte Moor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

12909928 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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.
12/909,928 10/22/2010 James J. Moor PA13385A; 6958
67097-1365PUS1
54549 7590 02/21/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BRYANT, DAVID P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES J. MOOR, HERBERT A. CHIN, GREG CZELADKO,
GENE A. DANKO, ANDREW L. HAYNES, WANGEN LIN,
VINCENT NAVINS, ROBERT P. SCHAEFER, and
EBERHARDT PRIVITZER
Appeal 2015-0055511
Application 12/909,92 82
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8—10, 22—25, 31, 32, 34, 37, and 38. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Dec. 8, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 6, 2015), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 10, 2015), Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Aug. 18, 2014), and Non-Final Office Action (“Non-
Final Act.,” mailed May 28, 2014).
2 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-005551
Application 12/909,928
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to turbomachine
airfoils and, more particularly, to repairing or replacing airfoils using linear
friction welding techniques.” Spec. 12.
Claims 1 and 31 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of attaching an airfoil for an integrally
bladed rotor comprising:
sizing a consumable portion of a support collar assembly
such that the consumable portion has a midline that is positioned
between opposing, laterally outer surfaces of an airfoil stub for
an integrally bladed rotor when the support collar assembly is in
an installed position, the support collar assembly placed around
at least a leading edge and a trailing edge of the airfoil stub when
in the installed position; and
performing linear friction welding to add an airfoil to the
airfoil stub.
REJECTION3
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8—10, 22—25, 31, 32, 34, 37, and 38 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Trask (US 5,865,364, iss. Feb. 2,
1999).4
3 We treat the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as having been withdrawn by the Examiner.
4 We treat the omission of claim 34 at page 3 of the Final Office Action
from the list of claims subject to rejection as inadvertent error. See Non-
Final Action, 4, 6, 8.
2
Appeal 2015-005551
Application 12/909,928
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and 31under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Trask does not
disclose “sizing a consumable portion of a support collar assembly such that
the consumable portion has a midline that is positioned between opposing,
laterally outer surfaces of an airfoil stub,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly
recited in claim 31. App. Br. 3^4. The Examiner cites Trask at Figures 3—
11 and at column 4, line 33—column 5, line 38, column 5, lines 56—60, and
column 6, lines 5—25, 44-48, and 56—60, as disclosing the argued limitation.
Final Act. 4. We have reviewed each of the cited portions of Trask. Yet, we
find no explicit disclosure regarding sizing a consumable portion in the
manner recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 31.
Trask relates to linear friction welding, which can be used for
attaching blades (airfoils) to a rotor to form an integrally bladed rotor.
Trask, col. 1,11. 9, 53—55. Each of the plurality of blades has a somewhat
different shape and orientation. Id. col. 6,11. 56—59. With reference to
Figure 3, Trask describes providing collars 46, 47 at the leading and trailing
edges 33, 34 of stub 42. Id. col. 5,11. 21—22. Collars 46, 47 each comprise a
partial band 48, 49 and a band base 50, 51. Id. col. 5,11. 22—23. The
geometry of bands 48, 49 should be suitable to reduce or eliminate the
alternating exposure of the edges on an extension blade member which is to
be linear friction welded to the stub so as to avoid edge defects. Id. col. 5,11.
39-44. However, the geometry of bands 48, 49 also should be as small as
possible to reduce the magnitude of the load experienced by the band,
thereby making it easier to hold the band in place. Id. col. 5,11. 48—56.
3
Appeal 2015-005551
Application 12/909,928
Bands 48, 49 are generally uniform in width 60, 61 and generally conform to
the major outer surface 45 of stub 42. Id. col. 5,11. 56—60. During linear
friction welding, heights 62, 64 of bands 48, 49 gradually decrease. Id.
col. 6,11. 5—6. Preferably, the initial heights 62, 64 of bands 48, 49 are at
least as great as the expected decrease to prevent the linear friction welding
interface from reaching the radially outer surface 66, 68 of the bases 50, 51,
but not so large as to make the bands 48, 49 susceptable to breaking during
linear frictional welding. Id. col. 6,11. 6—13.
In this regard, Trask describes several factors to consider when sizing
bands 48, 49. But we agree with Appellants that none of the cited portions
of Trask relates to sizing the band based on a position of its midline, as
required by claims 1 and 31. See App. Br. 3.
In response, the Examiner finds that “Figure 3 [of Trask] clearly
shows that the midline of the consumable portions (48, 49) is located within
the opposing lateral surfaces of the stub (i.e. radial outer surface 44 of Trask
et al).” Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that the consumable portions are
sized so that the outer radial surfaces are small, that the total area of the
outer radial surfaces is typically less than that of the airfoil stub, that the
consumable portions are generally uniform in width and conform to the
outer surface of the airfoil stub. Id. at 3^4 (citing Trask, col. 5,11. 58—67).
The Examiner concludes that the midline of Trask’s consumable portion
“will always be located within the ‘opposing outer surfaces of the airfoil
stub’ (i.e. radial outer surface).” Id. at 4. And the Examiner finds that
[t]he only conceivable circumstance where the midline is not so
positioned is where one side of the consumable portion is so
significantly larger than the opposing side that its midline would
be outside of the airfoil.
4
Appeal 2015-005551
Application 12/909,928
Id.
Appellants argue that Figure 3 of Trask provides no indication of the
position of a midline of consumable portions, and the Examiner
impermissibly relies on a measurement from an offset perspective view
where the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is
silent as to dimensions. Reply Br. 1—2 (citing MPEP § 2125). Appellants
further argue that consumable portions could have a midline outside the
radially outer surface of an airfoil stub, even when radial surfaces are small
and less than the radially outer surface of an airfoil stub. Id. at 2. And
Appellants assert that the possible exception provided by the Examiner
belies the assertion that the midline is always located within opposing outer
surfaces of the airfoil stub. Id. We agree with Appellants.
Critically, the Examiner relies on Figure 3 of Trask to measure a
particular relationship between a midline of a consumable portion and
opposing lateral surfaces of the stub when the specification is silent as to the
matter. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Inti, 222 F.3d 951, 956
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[PJatent drawings do not define the precise proportions of
the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the
specification is completely silent on the issue.”).
Our reviewing court has held that a specification need not disclose the
precise proportions or particular sizes “[a]s long as a person of skill in the art
could derive the claimed dimensions from the patent’s disclosure.”
Cummins-Allison Corp. v. SBMCo., 484 Fed. App’x 499, 507 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (nonprecedential). Because the specification and the drawings of
Trask fail to describe so much as a midline of a consumable portion, a
finding that Trask describes or suggest sizing the consumable portion such
5
Appeal 2015-005551
Application 12/909,928
that the midline is positioned between opposing, laterally outer surfaces of
an airfoil stub, as recited in claims 1 and 31 lacks adequate support.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claims 1 and 31. We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 8—10, 22—25, 32, 34, 37, and
38, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8—10, 22—25, 31, 32, 34,
37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
6