Ex Parte Noble

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2018

13743456 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/743,456 01/17/2013
1009 7590 09/28/2018
KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
LEXINGTON, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ernest John Noble
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.
1527-525 9319
EXAMINER
PETERS, BRIAN 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2018 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):
uspto@iplawl.net
laura@iplawl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERNEST JOHN NOBLE
Appeal2017-010939
Application 13/743,456 1
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant identifies Delta T Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010939
Application 13/743,456
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A fan blade configured to mount to a rotating fan hub,
the fan blade comprising:
a. a root end configured to couple with the rotating fan
hub, wherein a profile of the root end comprises a substantially
concave top surface and a substantially concave domed sector;
b. a blade region, wherein a profile of the blade region
comprises a substantially convex top surface and a bottom
surface;
c. a transition region extending between the root end and
the blade region, wherein the transition region comprises a
profile which transitions the root end profile to the blade region
profile;
d. a leading edge;
e. a trailing edge; and
f. a tip, wherein the leading edge and trailing edge
terminate into the tip.
REJECTION
Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Noble (US D612,476 S, iss. Mar. 23, 2010) and Yu
(CN 2120211 U, pub. Oct. 28, 1992). 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely upon and adopt the Examiner's findings stated in the Final
Office Action at pages 3-13 and the Answer at pages 2-9, except as stated
otherwise in the Analysis below. Additional findings of fact may appear in
the Analysis below.
2 We regard as inadvertent the omission of claim 20 from the description of
the rejection on page 6 of the Final Office Action; claim 20 is addressed on
pages 11-13 thereof.
2
Appeal2017-010939
Application 13/743,456
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and 20
and Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 12-16
The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, because the cited Noble and Yu references, whether
regarded individually or in combination, do not teach the recited "fan blade"
having "a profile of the root end compris[ing] a substantially concave top
surface" and "a profile of the blade region compris[ing] a substantially
convex top surface." Appeal Br. 10-13.
Yet, the Examiner's analysis sufficiently demonstrates the manner in
which Noble's Figures 1-7 show a fan blade having a top surface with a
substantially concave profile proximate the root end. See Final Action 3--4,
Answer 3-5. This determination is reinforced by the observation that
Noble's Figures 1-7 rely upon similar representational conventions, for
illustrating surface contours, as are shown in Figures 1--4 and 6 of the
Appellant's Specification. As the Examiner explains, for example, Figure 1
of the Specification and Figure 1 of Noble both employ a "quasi-parabolic
shape" to indicate an "inflection portion" in respective blade surfaces,
between concave and convex regions. Answer 7-8. See also Final Action
8-9. Likewise, the Specification states: "Inflection portion (64) of the
present example comprises a quasi-parabolic shaped portion that extends
from leading edge (80) to trailing edge (90)." Spec. ,r 38 (referring to Figs. 4
and 6).
Consistent with the finding of a surface inflection in Noble, the
Examiner also finds that "Noble does show the blade region having a convex
top surface," but adds that "it was uncertain whether Noble's convex top
3
Appeal2017-010939
Application 13/743,456
surface was 'substantial."' Final Action 4 (citing Noble Fig. 4).
Consequently, the rejection relies upon "the Yu reference for its showing of
a substantial convex surface" profile on the top surface of the blade region.
Id.
Further, as the Examiner indicates (Answer 7), the Appellant admits
that the top surface of Noble's blade has both concave and convex profiles,
because the Appeal Brief states that Noble "barely even illustrates the
transition region" (Appeal Br. 15)- i.e., the recited "transition" existing
between claim 1 's root-end profile (having "a substantially concave top
surface") and blade-region profile (having "a substantially convex top
surface"). As the Examiner explains: "Barely illustrating is still an
illustration and thus still a teaching." Answer 7.
Accordingly, the Appellant does not persuasively argue that the
combination of cited references fails to teach "a profile of the root end
compris[ing] a substantially concave top surface" and "a profile of the blade
region compris[ing] a substantially convex top surface," as claim 1 recites.
Notwithstanding the Examiner's findings -to the effect that Noble
and Yu together teach the limitations of claim 1 -the Appellant contends
that the Examiner does not "provide any reason based on a rational
underpinning for combining" Noble and Yu. Appeal Br. 13. According to
the Appellant, the Examiner's reason for combining the references
constitutes an "unsupported conclusion" that "merely speculates about the
possible benefits of such a combination." Id. at 14.
However, the rejection states that the reason for combining the
references would be to add particular benefits of Yu's ceiling fan blade -
4
Appeal2017-010939
Application 13/743,456
benefits associated with Yu's pronounced (i.e., "substantial") convex upper
surface profile -to the Noble design:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
at the time of invention, to modify the blade's top surface, as
taught by Noble, by using a substantially convex top surface, as
taught by Yu, in order to have a blade of favorable aerodynamic
quality, high hydraulic efficiency, large wind power, low noise,
favorable thermoplastic plastics elasticity and uneasy
deformation.
Final Action 8. See also Answer 6-7. The Abstract of the Yu reference
states that its disclosed embodiment possesses these very benefits. The
Examiner's Answer explains that these stated benefits relate to the curvature
of Yu's blade. Answer 5---6. Consequently, the Examiner's Answer states:
These three articulated reasons of favorable aerodynamic
quality, high hydraulic efficiency and large wind power are
more than just conclusory statements, they are specific
articulated reasons why one of ordinary skill in that art would
seek to improve the slight curve of Noble with the substantial
curve of Yu.
Answer 6-7. Contrary to the Appellant's assertion that "these benefits
provide no support for the combination" (Reply Br. 3), a teaching in a prior
art reference may supply a reason to combine references. See In re Rouffet,
149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In view of the foregoing, the Appellant's arguments do not persuade
us of error in the rejection of claim 1. The Appellant presents no separate
arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 12-16, or independent claim
20 - instead relying on the arguments provided for claim 1. See Appeal Br.
14, 15-16. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-16,
and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal2017-010939
Application 13/743,456
Dependent Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, that "the transition region
comprises a first portion, an inflection portion, and a second portion."
According to the rejection, Figures 1-7 of Noble disclose this
limitation. Final Action 8.
The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4,
because Noble's Figures do not show the three distinct claimed portions.
Appeal Br. 15. Yet, aside from expressing disagreement with the
Examiner's determination, the Appellant articulates no reasoned argument
regarding claim 4. "A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Moreover, the Examiner's analysis and annotated version of Noble's
Figure 1 show that Noble teaches the "first portion," "inflection portion,"
and "second portion" and does so to the same extent as Figure 1 of the
Appellant's Specification. See Answer 7-8; see also Final Action 8-9.
Accordingly, the Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
rejection of claim 4, such that we sustain the rejection of claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent Claims 8-11
Dependent claims 8-11 recite:
8. The fan blade of claim 7, wherein the top surface of
the profile of the blade region comprises: a first top convex
curvature proximal to the second portion of the transition
region, and a second top convex curvature proximal to the tip.
6
Appeal2017-010939
Application 13/743,456
9. The fan blade of claim 8, wherein the bottom surface
of the profile of the blade region comprises a first bottom
concave curvature proximal to the second portion of the
transition region, and a second bottom concave curvature
proximal to the tip.
10. The fan blade of claim 9, wherein the top surface of
the blade region transitions from the first top convex curvature
to the second top convex curvature along a length of the blade
reg10n.
11. The fan blade of claim 10, wherein the bottom
surface of the blade region transitions from the first bottom
concave curvature to the second bottom concave curvature
along the length of the blade region.
The Appellant regards the relevant features of claims 8-11 to be that
"claims 10 and 11 expressly recite the transition between two distinct top
convex curvatures in the blade region (recited in claim 8) and the transition
between two distinct bottom concave curvatures in the blade region (recited
in claim 9), respectively." Appeal Br. 15.
According to the Appellant, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-
11 because the cited Yu reference "fails to disclose two distinct curvatures
of the blade region, much less a transition between the first and second
curvatures of the top and bottom surfaces of the blade region." Id.
To the contrary, as set forth in the rejection (see Final Action 9-10),
Yu's Figures indicate the claimed transitions of amounts of curvature along
the length of the blade - showing (in Figures 2 and 3) different radii of
curvature corresponding to cross-sectional profiles at locations A-A and B-B
of Figure 1. In addition, Yu's Abstract states that "[t]he section shape of the
utility model from the head to the root segment is a curved surface whose
curvature radius gradually and smoothly changes." Therefore, Yu teaches
7
Appeal2017-010939
Application 13/743,456
the transition between distinct amounts of curvature, which the Appellant
contends to be lacking.
In view of the foregoing, the Appellant's argument is not persuasive
of error in the rejection of claims 8-11, such that we sustain the rejection of
claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8