Ex Parte Packman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 18, 2009

10899886 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
____________________

Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided: 18 November 2009
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, United
Technologies Corporation (“UTC”), under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

2
rejection of claims 1-4, 8, and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.

References Relied on by the Examiner
Yazdzik, Jr. et al. (“Yazdzik”) 5,430,936 Jul. 11, 1995

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yazdzik.

The Invention
The invention relates to a process for machining axial blade slots in
turbine disks for jet engines. (Spec. 1:2-3.)
Claim 1 is reproduced below (App. Br. 13 Claims App’x):
1. A process for machining axial blade slots in a turbine disk for
an engine comprising the steps of:

providing a turbine disk;

forming a roughened slot having a plurality of joined
rectangular areas in said turbine disk;

said forming step comprising forming a first rectangular area in
said turbine disk and a second rectangular area abutting said first
rectangular area;

said forming step comprising forming said first rectangular area
using a first grinding wheel to have a first wall and a second wall
parallel to said first wall;

said forming step further comprising forming said second
rectangular area using a second grinding wheel different from said
Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

3
first grinding wheel to have a third wall joined to said first wall of said
first rectangular area by a first surface perpendicular to said first and
third walls;

said forming step further comprising forming said second
rectangular area to have a fourth wall joined to said second wall of
said first rectangular area by a second surface perpendicular to said
second and fourth walls; and

machining the roughened slot to a finished slot.
B. ISSUES
1. Has UTC shown that the Examiner was incorrect in
determining that Yazdzik discloses the step of forming a roughened slot with
a second rectangular area using a second grinding wheel that is different
from the grinding wheel used to form a first rectangular area?
2. Has UTC shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to make the angled surfaces of Yazdzik’s
roughened slot perpendicular with respect to the walls of that slot?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Yazdzik discloses a method for making gas turbine engine
blade attachment slots. (Yazdzik Title.)

Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

4
2. Yazdzik’s Figure 5 is reproduced below:

The figure shown above depicts a “rough ground turbine disk
with stepped slots.” (Id. at 2:56-57.)

3. Yazdzik’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:

The figure shown above depicts a “cross sectional view of the
straight sided rough grinding wheel.” (Id. at 2:50-51.)

4. Yazdzik discloses that the rough grinding wheel is used to form
a roughened slot. (Id. at 1:66-2:7.)
Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

5
5. As disclosed in Yazdzik, the wheel is plunged into the turbine
disk and is then traversed across the disk to complete the roughing operation.
(Id. at 3:37-39.)
6. It is only after the roughened slot has been formed that an
additional semi-finish grinding wheel is then inserted into that slot. (Id. at
3:8-15.)
7. UTC’s Figure 2B is reproduced below:

The figure shown above depicts a roughened slot having
rectangular areas 16, 18, and 20. (Spec. 3:10-13.)

D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The initial burden is on the Examiner to provide a factual basis to
support an obviousness conclusion. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967).
Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

6
E. ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 8, and 13 as obvious over Yazdzik.
We focus on independent claims 1 and 13. Each of those claims is drawn to
a process for machining axial blade slots in a turbine disk for an engine. The
process involves steps of forming an initial roughened slot in the disk that
includes abutting first and second rectangular areas. The claim features in
dispute are reproduced below (App. Br. 13, 15 Claims App’x.):
said forming step further comprising forming said second
rectangular area using a second grinding wheel different from said
first grinding wheel to have a third wall joined to said first wall of said
first rectangular area by a first surface perpendicular to said first and
third walls;

said forming step further comprising forming said second
rectangular area to have a fourth wall joined to said second wall of
said first rectangular area by a second surface perpendicular to said
second and fourth walls[.]

Thus, there are two limitations with respect to the second rectangular
area. First, the second rectangular area must be formed using a second
grinding wheel that is different from the grinding wheel used to form the
first rectangular area. Secondly, the walls of the second rectangular area
must be joined to the walls of the first rectangular area by perpendicular
surfaces.
UTC’s Figure 2B illustrates an embodiment of its roughened slot
with features that correspond to the above-quoted limitations.

Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

7
That figure is reproduced below:

The figure shown above depicts a roughened slot.

As shown in Figure 2B, a second rectangular area 18 is formed
abutting a first rectangular area 20 with the parallel walls of each area joined
by perpendicular surfaces.
Turning first to the limitation of using a different grinding wheel to
form the second rectangular area, the Examiner found that Yazdzik discloses
a process of machining blade slots in the turbine disk of an engine where the
slots are formed using a “rough grinding wheel” and a “semi-finish grinding
wheel.” (Ans. 3:21-4:2.) The Examiner focused on Yazdzik’s Figure 5 as
showing a roughened slot formed by those two grinding wheels.

Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

8
Yazdzik’s Figure 5 is reproduced below:

The figure shown above depicts a “rough ground turbine disk
with stepped slots.” (Yazdzik 2:56-57.)

UTC contends that the roughened slots described in Yazdzik and
shown in Figure 5 are not formed using two different grinding wheels as
required by its claims. Rather, according to UTC, those roughened slots are
formed using only a single rough grinding wheel. (Reply Br. 2:16-24.) UTC
urges that Yazdzik’s semi-finishing wheel is not used in forming any area of
the roughened slot. (Id. at 2:24-26.)

Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

9
The Examiner has not identified adequate support for
his conclusion. The roughened slots shown in Yazdzik’s
Figure 5 are formed using a single rough grinding wheel
having a rim with a profile that corresponds to the shape of the
illustrated slot. The rough grinding wheel is shown in
Yazdzik’s Figure 2 which is reproduced at right. As explained
in Yazdzik, the wheel is plunged into the turbine disk and is
then traversed across the disk to complete the roughing
operation. (Yazdzik 3:37-39.) It is only after the roughened
slot has been formed that an additional semi-finish grinding
wheel is then inserted into that slot. (Id. at 3:8-15.) In light of
those teachings, we reject the Examiner’s conclusion that the
process of forming a roughened slot disclosed in Yazdzik
includes forming a second rectangular area using a second
different grinding wheel.

With respect to the limitation of perpendicular surfaces that join the
walls of the rectangular areas, the Examiner determined that the surfaces that
join the walls of the areas shown in Yazdzik’s Figure 5 are angled, and thus
not perpendicular. In accounting for that deficiency, the Examiner stated
(Ans. 4:6-10):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of invention to make the first and second surfaces of Yazdzik et
al. perpendicular to the first and third [walls], and second and fourth
walls because such a configuration would have been far easier to
machine than the angled first and second surfaces of Yazdzik et al.

The Examiner, however, does not explain why making the noted
surfaces perpendicular would be “far easier” or point to any factual support
Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

10
for that determination. The initial burden is on the Examiner to provide a
factual basis to support an obviousness conclusion. In re Warner, 379 F.2d
at 1017. No such basis has been provided. Moreover, even if making the
surfaces perpendicular is in fact easier, the Examiner has not articulated why
that knowledge would have been known to one with ordinary skill in the art.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 13 as unpatentable over Yazdzik. Claims 2-4 and
8 are dependent on claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-
4 and 8.
F. CONCLUSION
1. UTC has shown that the Examiner was incorrect in determining
that Yazdzik discloses the step of forming a roughened slot with a second
rectangular area using a second grinding wheel that is different from the
grinding wheel used to form a first rectangular area.
2. UTC has shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to make the angled surfaces of Yazdzik’s
roughened slot perpendicular with respect to the walls of that slot.
G. ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-4, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yazdzik is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-006732
Application 10/899,886

11
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
900 CHAPEL STREET
SUITE 1201
NEW HAVEN CT 06510