Ex Parte Morrison

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

12486274 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/486,274 06/17/2009
28524 7590 09/23/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jay A. Morrison
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.
2009P09284US 4836
EXAMINER
HTAY,AYE SU MON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAY A. MORRISON
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
Technology Center 3700
Before NEALE. ABRAMS, ANNETTE R. REIMERS,
and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jay A. Morrison (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 1, 5-12, 15-17, 20 and 23. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to stationary airfoil having an improved
trailing edge. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. An airfoil comprising:
a suction side and a pressure side joined along a trailing
edge;
wherein a trailing edge portion of the airfoil is configured
to take a wavelike form along a radial direction of the airfoil;
wherein an amplitude of said wavelike form varies from a
maximum value at the trailing edge to zero at a predetermined
distance along a chord length of the airfoil;
and wherein said amplitude of said wavelike form at said
trailing edge is approximately equal to a thickness of the trailing
edge.
THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Presz, Jr. et al.
("Presz")
Burke et al.
("Burke")
Wood et al.
("Wood")
us 4,830,315
US 7,247,003 B2
US 2009/0013532 Al
THE REJECTIONS
May 16, 1989
July 24, 2007
Jan. 15,2009
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
Claims 1, 5 and 7 on the basis of Presz and "Engineering Expedient."1
Claim 6 on the basis of Presz and Engineering Expedient.
Claim 8 on the basis of Presz, Engineering Expedient, and Wood.
1 Explained infra at 3.
2
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
Claims 9-11, 15, 16, 20 and 23 on the basis of Presz and Wood.
Claims 12 and 17 on the basis of Presz, Wood and Burke.
OPINION
Claims 1, 5 and 7
Obviousness - Presz and Engineering Expedient
Independent claim 1 recites an airfoil having a suction side and a
pressure side. Among the limitations is that the airfoil comprises a trailing
edge having a trailing edge portion configured to a wave-like form with an
amplitude that "varies from a maximum value at the trailing edge to zero at a
predetermined distance along a chord of the airfoil," and wherein the
"amplitude [at said] trailing edge is approximately equal to a thickness of the
trailing edge." App. Br. 3. With reference to Figure 9, the Examiner has
found that all of the subject matter recited in independent claim 1 is
disclosed in Presz, except for the limitation regarding the amplitude of the
wavelike form at the trailing edge. Final Act. 6. However, it is the
Examiner's position that this limitation would have been obvious "as an
engineering expedient for the purpose of providing a desired operating angle
of attack" (Final Act. 6, (emphasis added)), based upon the following
reasonmg:
It is common practice for engineers in the art of airfoil
design to consider the amplitude of the wavelike form at the
trailing edge. This common practice is further supported by
Presz, Jr. et al. disclosing that "optimizing the size and shape of
the troughs and ridges may have to be done by trial and error,
and will depend, for example, on the desired operating angle of
attack and the nominal airfoil cross-sectional shape," (Column 8,
Line 9-13 ), and the wavelike form (troughs and ridges) may
"encompass any amplitude which provides beneficial results"
(Column 8, Line 25-27).
3
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
Id.
As explained in detail on pages 3 and 4 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant
disputes the Examiner's conclusion, arguing that Presz does not specifically
disclose the amplitude of troughs and ridges 32, 34, 38 and 40, shown in
Figures 5A and 5B, but teaches that the amplitude encompasses "any
amplitude which provides beneficial results," which is described as being "at
least the same as and most preferably about twice the maximum thickness T
of the separation region (col. 8 lines 19-20)." Appellant argues that, as
shown in Presz Figures 1 and 3, to achieve the "beneficial results," the
maximum thickness of the separation region is much greater than the
thickness of the trailing edge, and urges that "even the minimum amplitude
is much greater than the thickness of the trailing edge." Appeal Br. 4. With
reference to Presz column 8, lines 24 and 25, Appellant points out that Presz
"warns against a design in which the amplitude is too low," as this "may
result in delaying the onset of separation, without preventing it completely."
Id. Appellant goes on to state that it would not be "common practice for
engineers" to disregard the teachings of Presz and "reduce the amplitude of
the troughs and ridges [] to below a minimum[], thereby removing beneficial
results and introducing known performance disadvantages which undermine
the performance of the airfoil." Id. Thus, Appellant concludes, "the
proposed modification would render Presz [] unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose of delaying or preventing boundary layer separation. Accordingly,
the rejection is fatally deficient, since the proposed modification [] cannot be
used to support the rejection of independent claim 1, per MPEP 2143.01."
Id. See also Reply Br. 2-3.
4
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the evidence
provided by the Examiner does not establish that Appellant's claim 1 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Presz states that the
objectives of the invention are reducing the drag on an airfoil at high
loading, increasing lift capabilities, reducing the tendency to stall,
eliminating two-dimensional boundary layer separation on the surface, and
operating at higher angles of attack. Presz col. 3, 11. 5-14. To accomplish
these objectives, Presz teaches that the airfoil have a "thin trailing edge"
with a "series of alternating, adjoining troughs and ridges forming wave-like
surface undulations which terminate at the trailing edge .... Consequently,
the trailing edge has a wave-like shape." Id. at col. 3, 11. 19-30. Presz
describes this arrangement in the following manner:
To have the desired effect of preventing or reducing streamwise
two-dimensional boundary layer separation on the airfoil
surface, it is believed that the sum of the depth and height of the
troughs and ridges respectively at the trailing edge (i.e., the peak-
to-peak wave amplitude at the trailing edge) will need to be
substantially greater than the 99% boundary layer thickness
immediately forward of the upstream ends of the troughs. It is
believed that best results are obtained when peak to peak
amplitude at the trailing edge is comparable to the thickness of
the separation bubble (or wake) which would be expected to
occur at the trailing edge at a selected angle of attack for which
the airfoil is designed, if the airfoil did not incorporate the
troughs and ridges of the present invention. This will generally
result in trough depth and ridge heights many times larger (often
orders of magnitude larger) than the boundary layer thickness.
Col. 3, 1. 54---col. 4, 1. 3.
Thus, Presz teaches that the objectives of the invention are
accomplished by the airfoil having a thin trailing edge, and that the
amplitude of the troughs and ridges is related to the thickness of the
5
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
boundary layer on the surface of the airfoil. There is no mention in Presz of
a relationship between the amplitude of the troughs and ridges and the
thickness of the trailing edge of the airfoil. Therefore, we cannot agree with
the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to relate the amplitude of the troughs and ridges to the thickness of the
trailing edge in the manner recited in Appellant's claim 1, based upon Presz'
broad statement that "optimizing the size and shape of the troughs and ridges
may have to be done by trial and error, and will depend upon, for example,
on the desired operating angle of attack and the nominal airfoil cross-
sectional shape" (see Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 5).
The rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5 and 7 is
not sustained.
Claim 6
Obviousness - Presz and Engineering Expedient
Claim 6 adds to claim 1 the requirement that the wavelength of the
wavelike form along the trailing edge of the airfoil "is in a range of 2-4
times the thickness of the trailing edge." The Examiner's position is that "it
appears that Presz, Jr. et al. teaches a wavelength (see Figure 1 of the
Detailed Action) of the wavelike form along the trailing edge is a range of 2-
4 times a thickness of the trailing edge (Column 9, Line 48-58; Figure 9)."
Final Act. 8. As an alternative, it is the Examiner's view that Presz shows
this limitation in Figure 15 and, because Appellant has not disclosed that this
wave form solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, it
would have been an obvious matter of design choice to so modify the Presz
wave form. Id. at 8-9.
6
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
Be that as it may, as stated supra, it is our decision that the combined
teachings of Presz and Engineering Expedient fail to render obvious the
subject matter recited in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, and therefore
the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 also is not sustained.
Claim 8
Obviousness-Presz, Engineering Expedient and Wood
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by requiring that the wavelike form
recited in claim 1 comprise "a tapered square wave form comprising
alternating flat levels having different relative elevations joined by
respective sloped sections joining the alternating flat levels." The Examiner
has cited Wood for this teaching, concluding that it would have been
obvious to so modify the Presz airfoil in such a manner in view of the
showing in Wood's Figure 8. Final Act. 9.
However, the teachings of Wood fail to overcome the deficiencies
noted supra in the rejection of claiml, and therefore the rejection of claim 8
also is not sustained.
Claims 9-11, 15, 16, 20 and 23
Obviousness - Presz and Wood
Independent claim 9 is directed to a system comprising a stationary
airfoil and a rotating airfoil. The Examiner has found that Presz discloses all
of the subject matter recited in claim 9 except for "[t]he wavelike form [that]
comprises a tapered square wave form comprising alternating flat levels
having different relative elevations joined by respective sloped sections
joining the alternating levels." Final Act. 11. However, the Examiner takes
the position that this feature is taught by Wood, and it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the waveform of Presz
by "replacing" it with the one disclosed by Wood "for the purpose of
7
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
reducing the amplitude of the wake flow," because Presz "discloses that
'optimizing the size and shape of the troughs and ridges may have to be
done by trial and error, and will depend, for example, on the desired
operating angle of attack and the nominal airfoil cross-sectional shape,'
(Column 8, Line 9-13)." Final Act. 11-12. In response to Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner has further explained that
the modification of the waveform of Presz, Jr. et al. has been
done only to the shape of the wavelike form and not the chord.
No "second modification" has been done to equalize the chord
of the Presz, Jr. et al. as argued by the Appellant (Page 9 of
Appeal Brief). Since the chord of Presz, Jr. et al. has always
remained constant, there is no need to modify the chord and only
the shape of the wavelike pattern has been modified as taught by
Wood.
Ans. 21 (emphasis added).
Appellant initially argues that the modification proposed by the
Examiner would not have been obvious because Wood teaches that, as
shown in Figure 7, the trailing edge of the disclosed airfoil has varying
chord lengths, and this would cause the Presz airfoil to be unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. See App. Br. 6-9. Appellant also asserts that the
proposed modification was the result of "impermissible hindsight
reconstruction" of the Wood airfoil. Id. at 9. On pages 3 and 4 of the Reply
Brief, Appellant contends that the Examiner set forth the rejection in terms
of "replacing it (wave form of Presz) with the tapered square wave as taught
by Wood et al.," and that such "replacing" necessarily would necessarily
also cause the modified Presz airfoil to comprise the varying chord lengths
of Wood, and thus not disclose the Appellant's claimed invention.
8
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
Based upon the Examiner's explanation on page 21 of the Answer
(supra at 8), our understanding of the rejection is that the Examiner's
proposed modification to Presz is limited to modifying the cross-sectional
shape of the trailing edge portion of the airfoil from the curvilinear shape
shown in Presz' Figures 9 and 10 to a tapered square-like cross-sectional
shape, as disclosed in Wood's Figure 8, with the chord length disclosed by
Presz remaining constant along the trailing portion of the airfoil rather than
being variable, as in Wood. We are not convinced otherwise by Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief (pages 7-9), which focus upon the variable
chord lengths in the Wood arrangement, or in the Reply Brief (pages 2--4),
which reinforce the position set forth in the Appeal Brief and add that
because the Examiner used the term "replacing" in the original statement of
the rejection, the variable chord lengths of Wood must be part of the
modification to Presz. Nor are we persuaded by Appellant's arguments that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the
proposed modification to the Presz airfoil in view of Presz' teaching that
"optimizing the size and shape of the troughs and ridges may have to be
done by trial and error, and will depend, for example, on the desired
operating angle of attack and the nominal airfoil cross-sectional shape."
Adv. Act. 2. It is our view that this teaching of Presz provides the necessary
motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in
the manner proposed by the Examiner, and overcomes Appellant's assertion
that the Examiner arrived at the modification by the hindsight afforded by
viewing Appellant's disclosure. Regarding Appellant's argument suggesting
that the proposed modification would render the Presz airfoil unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose and therefore cannot be used to support the rejection
9
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
(App. Br. 8, 9), we point out that Appellant has not provided evidence or
persuasive argument in support of this conclusion.
Therefore, although we have carefully considered all of Appellant's
arguments with regard to claim 9, we have concluded that the combined
teachings of Presz and Wood render the subject matter recited in claim 9
obvious, and the rejection of claim 9 is sustained. Because Appellant has
chosen to allow dependent claims 10, 11 and 20 to stand or fall with claim 9,
from which they depend (App. Br. 9), the like rejection of these claims also
is sustained.
Independent claim 15 is directed to a system comprising a row of
stationary airfoils upstream of a row of rotating airfoils. Appellant has
argued claim 15 separate I y from claim 9, although it recites that each
stationary airfoil comprise the same wavelike form at the trailing edge as
was present in claim 9. Again, the Examiner acknowledges that this feature
is not present in Presz, but finds that it is disclosed in Figure 8 of Wood, and
that it would have been obvious to modify the Presz structure to incorporate
it, based upon the same reasoning as was advanced in the rejection of claim
9. See Final Act. 13, 14. Appellant's arguments regarding this rejection are
the same as those made against the rejection of claim 9. See App. Br. 10, 11.
The rejection of claim 15 is sustained for the same reasons as claim 9.
Appellant has stated that dependent claims 16 and 23 stand or fall with claim
9 (App. Br. 11), and therefore the rejection of these two claims also is
sustained.
10
Appeal2014-003095
Application 12/486,274
Claims 12 and 17
Obviousness - Presz and Wood
Claim 12 depends from claim 9, and claim 1 7 from claim 15.
Appellant has chosen to have these claims stand or fall with the claims from
which they depend. App. Br. 11. This being the case the rejection of these
two claims is sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 5 and 7 as being obvious in view of Presz
and Engineering Expedient, is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 6 as being obvious in view of Presz and
Engineering Expedient, is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 8 as being obvious in view of Presz,
Engineering Expedient, and Wood, is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 9-11, 15, 16, 20 and 23 as being obvious in
view of Presz and Wood, is sustained.
The rejection of claims 12 and 17 as being obvious in view of Presz,
Wood and Burke, is sustained.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11