Ex Parte Parkin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

12955323 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/955,323 11/29/2010 Michael Parkin
54549 7590 09/14/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
PA12529-U;
67097-1392PUS1
7282
EXAMINER
PETERS, BRIAN 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL PARKIN, PHILLIP ALEXANDER, and
CARL BRIAN KLINETOB
Appeal2014-008834
Application 12/955,323
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Parkin et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-008834
Application 12/955,323
CLAHvfED SUBJECT ~vfATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A composite airfoil comprising:
a core including a three-dimensional network of fibers, the
core defining an airfoil section and a root section; and
a composite skin covering a portion of the core excluding
the root section.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Carlson
Jonas
Ellis
Baldwin
us 3,762,835
us 3,796,513
us 4,118,147
us 5,279,892
REJECTIONS 1
Oct. 2, 1973
Mar. 12, 1974
Oct. 3, 1978
Jan. 18, 1994
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--6, and 11-192 stand rejected under 35 U .S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Baldwin and Ellis.
II. Claims 1, 3, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baldwin and Jonas.
III. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baldwin, Ellis, and Carlson.
1 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, in the Answer. Ans. 5.
2 Although the statement of this rejection refers to claims 1, 2, 4--6, and 11-
15, the body of the rejection also addresses claims 16-19. Accordingly, we
understand claims 1, 2, 4--6, and 11-19 to be subject to this ground of
rejection.
2
Appeal2014-008834
Application 12/955,323
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Baldwin discloses all of the claim limitations
except a composite skin that does not cover the root section. See Final Act.
4. The Examiner further finds that "Ellis teaches a turbine blade having a
composite skin (36) covering a portion of the core excluding the root." Id.
Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious "to modify the skin covering of the composite airfoil as taught by
Baldwin by excluding the skin from covering the root as taught by Ellis in
order to reduce vibratory modes and chordwise bending." Id. (citing Ellis
3:51, 60----61 ).
Appellants contend that "[s]ince Balwin's root already has a skin, one
of ordinary skill in the art would not remove the skin in order to try to
achieve the noted benefits." Appeal Br. 4. In support of this contention,
Appellants notes that in Ellis "[t]he benefit of reducing vibratory modes and
chordwise bending bears no connection to excluding covering a root with a
skin because Ellis' root is uncovered before and after his substitution of
composite for a portion of the metal." Id. Based on these facts, Appellant
argues that "it necessarily must be the substitution of a portion of the metal
with composite, not exclusion of covering the root with a skin, which leads
to Ellis' benefits," thus, "even assuming one of ordinary skill would try to
achieve such benefits in Baldwin, which they would not, the achievement of
these benefits does not require exclusion of covering the root with a skin."
Id.
3
Appeal2014-008834
Application 12/955,323
Appellants are correct. Ellis does not indicate that it achieves its
benefits by excluding the skin from the root portion. See, generally, Ellis.
Thus, the Examiner's reasoning lacks rationale underpinning.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 4---6, 16, and 17, which depend therefrom. Claim 11
also requires "a composite skin covering a portion of the core excluding the
root section" and claim 12 requires "covering a portion of the core excluding
the root section with a composite skin." Appeal Br. 10. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 land 12, claim 18
(which depends from claim 11), and claims 13-15 and 19 (which depend
from claim 12), for the same reason.
Rejection II
Again, the Examiner finds that Baldwin discloses all of the claim
limitations except a composite skin that does not cover the root section. See
Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds that "Jonas teaches a turbine blade
having a composite skin (col. 2 In. 5-11) covering a portion of the blade
excluding the root." Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious "to modify the skin covering of the
composite airfoil as taught by Baldwin by excluding the skin from covering
the root as taught by Jonas in order to dampen vibrations (col. 2 ln. 9)." Id.
Appellants argue that:
The benefit of damping vibrations bears no connection to
excluding covering a root with a skin because Jonas' root is
uncovered with or without the damping material in the airfoil
section. Thus, it necessarily must be the use of the damping
material in the airfoil section, not exclusion of covering the root
with a skin, which leads to Jonas' benefits. In other words, even
assuming one of ordinary skill would try to achieve such benefits
in Baldwin, which they would not, the achievement of these
4
Appeal2014-008834
Application 12/955,323
benefits does not require exclusion of covering the root with a
skin.
Appeal Br. 7.
Appellants are correct. Jonas does not indicate that it achieves its
benefits by excluding the skin from the root portion. See, generally, Jonas.
Thus, the Examiner's reasoning lacks rationale underpinning.
Rejection III
The rejection of claims 8-10 relies upon the same erroneous reasoning
as the rejection of claim 1 discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-10 for the same reason.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5