Ex Parte Parkos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2017

13324169 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 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.
PA-0017347-US (11-291) 1165
EXAMINER
EDGAR, RICHARD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/324,169 12/13/2011
52237 7590
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
Joseph Parkos JR.
01/27/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH PARKOS, JR.,
MICHAEL A. WEISSE, CHRISTOPHER S. MCKAVENEY,
JAMES R. MURDOCK, and SCOTT C. BILLINGS
Appeal 2015-004629
Application 13/324,169
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 7—16, 19-21, and 25. Appeal Br. 4, 9. Claims 2—6, 17, 18, 22—24,
and 26 have been canceled. Id. at 4, 15—17 (Claims Appendix). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-004629
Application 13/324,169
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1,10, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A turbine engine component comprising:
an airfoil portion with a tip portion;
said tip portion having at least one chamfered edge on
at least one side, wherein said tip portion has a first chamfered
edge on a first side and a second chamfered edge on a second
side opposed to said first side, said at least one chamfered edge
having a radius;
a flattened tip portion extending between said first
chamfered edge and said second chamfered edge; and
a tip treatment applied to said flattened tip portion.
REJECTIONS1
Claims 1, 7—10, 12, 14—16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Freling (US 5,476,363, iss. Dec. 19,
1995) and Lee (US 6,086,328, iss. July 11, 2000).2
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Freling, Lee, and Schilling (US 6,004,101, iss. Dec. 21, 1999).
Claims 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freling, Lee, and Giusti (EP 1,908,919 Al, pub. Apr. 9,
2008).
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
fourth paragraph. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3.
2 The Examiner rejected claim 22 on this ground (Final Act. 5). However,
Appellants cancelled claim 22 in an amendment filed after the Final Action.
See Response to Final Office Action, filed Sept. 2, 2014, at 5, 6. Therefore,
the rejection of claim 22 on this ground is not before us.
2
Appeal 2015-004629
Application 13/324,169
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 7—10, 12, 14—16, and 19—21 as unpatentable over Freling and Lee
The Examiner found that Freling teaches a turbine engine component
and a method of creating such component as recited in independent claims 1,
10, and 14, except for the chamfered edge having a radius. Final Act. 5—6.
The Examiner found that Fee teaches alternative embodiments of an
edge that is chamfered with a straight cut or a radius, as claimed. Id. at 6.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify the
multiple cut or the angled cut taught by Freling to be a radius, as taught by
Fee, to provide a chamfered edge with a slightly altered performance to the
straight chamfer. Id. at 7.
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated
to combine the teachings of Freling and Fee as the Examiner does because
Fee teaches away from the combination. Appeal Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 3—5.
In particular, Appellants argue that Freling teaches a flat blade tip to support
an abrasive coating, whereas Fee teaches blade tip 38 configured to reduce a
surface area to reduce heating from combustion gases 12 and therefore also
includes a top recess/slot 48 and tip holes 50 without any coating. Appeal
Br. 11. Appellants also argue that a tip coating would render Fee completely
inoperable. Id. at 12; Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First,
the Examiner is not proposing to modify the turbine blade tip of Fee to
include a coating as taught in Freling. Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 4. Therefore,
Appellants’ arguments that the proposed combination would render Fee
inoperable is not persuasive as they do not address the rejection set forth in
the Final Action.
3
Appeal 2015-004629
Application 13/324,169
Second, the Examiner proposes to modify the shape of chamfer 30 in
Freling from a flat edge to an edge with a radius based on Lee’s teaching of
such curved side edges on turbine blades. Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner’s
proposal is supported by rational underpinnings at least because Lee teaches
that such arcuate sides 52b, 54b, 52c, 54c (Figs. 6, 7) decrease the exposed
surface area that is subject to combustion gas heating. Lee, 5:1—14.
The Examiner proposes to modify the shape of the chamfered sides of
Freling’s turbine blades to include a radius of curvature, as taught by Lee, to
alter the performance of the blade slightly as compared to a straight chamfer.
Final Act. 7. Lee teaches that such shapes “effectively reduce the external
heating surface area of the blade tip.” Lee, 5:15—17. A skilled artisan would
have been motivated to provide such benefits for Freling’s blades for use in
turbine and compressor sections of gas turbine engines. See Freling, 1:8—24.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that a skilled artisan would
have been discouraged from relying on Lee’s teachings to change the shape
of the chamfered sides of Freling for the reasons set forth in Lee. Contrary
to Appellants’ argument that Lee is concerned with reducing the surface area
of the blade tip and Freling is not (Appeal Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 4), we find
that Freling is directed to reducing the surface area that supports the blade
coating via chamfering to reduce the stresses that occur at the outer edges of
the blade. Freling, 4:10—23. Freling recognizes that tradeoffs exist between
reducing stress concentration at the blade tip through chamfered sides while
leaving sufficient tip surface to support a coating. Id. at 5:3—18. A skilled
artisan could weigh the advantages and disadvantages of radii of different
curvatures of the chamfered surface to reduce the heating of the tip and the
tip stresses while also leaving sufficient tip surface to support a coating.
4
Appeal 2015-004629
Application 13/324,169
Thus, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,10, and 14.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any of dependent claims 7—
9, 12, 15, 16, or 19—21. See Appeal Br. 12. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
those claims as well.
Rejections of claim 11, 13, and 25 over Freling, Lee, and Schilling/Giusti
The Examiner relied on Schilling to teach features of claim 11 and
Giusti to teach features of claims 13 and 25. Final Act. 8—9. Appellants do
not dispute the Examiner’s findings concerning claims 11, 13, and 25 based
on Schilling/Giusti, but argue that Schilling and Giusti do not remedy the
defects of Freeling and Lee. See Appeal Br. 13—14. Because we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 10, and 14 as unpatentable over Freling and Lee, there
are no deficiencies for Schilling or Giusti to cure. Thus, we also sustain the
rejections of claims 11, 13, and 25, which depend from claims 10, 1, and 14,
respectively.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 7—16, 19-21, and 25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5