Ex Parte Rawlings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

13005733 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
13/005,733 01/13/2011 Christopher Rawlings 2010P16921US 3137
28524 7590 09/25/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
ADJAGBE, MAXIME M
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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 CHRISTOPHER RAWLINGS, ROBERT M. DYSERT,
BILLIE E. SEALEY, JOSE PAULINO, and
ANTHONY J. MALANDRA
Appeal 2015-008086
Application 13/005,733
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Siemens Energy, Inc.”
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2015-008086
Application 13/005,733
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “relates to rotating turbine blade/disc
assemblies in gas turbines, and particularly to balancing or stacking the mass
of a blade airfoil and platform over an attachment axis or plane of symmetry
of the blade root.” (Spec. 1,11. 5—7.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A turbine blade comprising:
a platform having a platform center of mass;
a root attached to a first side of the platform and having a
root center of mass;
an airfoil attached to a second side of the platform and
having an airfoil center of mass;
wherein the airfoil center of mass and the platform center
of mass are offset to opposite sides of an attachment plane of
the turbine blade.
Evidence
Martin US 4,682,935 July 28, 1987
Herman US 6,786,696 B2 Sept. 7, 2004
Liang US 2008/0273984 A1 Nov. 6, 2008
Pandey US 2010/0158696 A1 June 24, 2010
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Herman. (Final Action 7.)
The Examiner rejects claims 2—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herman “in view of an engineering expedient.” (Final
Action 11.)
The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herman in view of Liang. (Final Action 14.)
2
Appeal 2015-008086
Application 13/005,733
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herman in view of Pandey. (Final Action 15.)
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herman in view of Pandey, and further in view of Liang.
(Final Action 16.)
The Examiner rejects claims 12—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herman “in view of an engineering expedient.” (Final
Action 17.)
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herman “in view of an engineering expedient,” and
further in view of Liang. (Final Action 19.)
The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herman “in view of an engineering expedient,” and
further in view of Pandey. (Final Action 20.)
The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herman in view of Liang. (Final Action 21.)
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herman in view of Pandey. (Final Action 22.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1,12, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal, with the
rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2—11, 13—17, 19, and 20) depending
therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 1, 12, and 18
recite “[a] turbine blade” having turbine-blade components, namely “an
airfoil,” “a platform,” and “a root.” (Id.) The limitations at issue in this
appeal concern the “centers of mass” of the recited turbine-blade
components.
3
Appeal 2015-008086
Application 13/005,733
According to the Appellants, “it is common to align the centers of
mass of the airfoil, platform, and root along a rotation radius called an
attachment or stacking axis.” (Spec. 1,11. 23—25.) However, in the claimed
turbine blade, the airfoil’s center of mass and the platform’s center of mass
are not aligned along the stacking axis. Instead, the claims on appeal specify
that the airfoil’s center of mass and the platform’s center of mass are offset
to opposite sides of an “attachment plane” and/or a “plane of bilateral
symmetry.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner’s rejections all rely upon Herman’s drawings to
disclose a turbine blade in which the components’ centers of mass are
arranged in the claimed manner. (See Final Action 7—10, 17—18.) To
elucidate this reliance, the Examiner provides an annotated version of
Herman’s Figure 5 in which the relevant locations (e.g., centers of mass,
attachment plane, lines of symmetry, etc.) are labeled. (See id. at 9.)
According to the Examiner’s annotations, the centers of mass of Herman’s
airfoil and platform are indeed offset to opposite sides of an attachment
plane, and they are also offset to opposite sides of a plane of bilateral
symmetry. (See id.)
The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings regarding the
centers of mass in Herman’s illustrated turbine blade rest on incorrect and/or
unsupported assumptions. (See Appeal Br., 2—6; see also Reply Br. 2—5.)
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments because, on the record
before us, the Examiner does not sufficiently establish that Herman’s
turbine-blade components have their centers of mass located as labeled in
the annotated drawing.
4
Appeal 2015-008086
Application 13/005,733
We agree with the Examiner that, although Herman does not discuss
or describe its turbine-blade components as having certain centers of mass,
this prior art reference could still “anticipate the claims if [its] drawings
clearly show the claimed structure.” (Final Action 3.) We also agree with
the Examiner’s implication that it is not always necessary for patent figures
to be “drawn to scale” to establish anticipation. {Id.) Here, however, the
Examiner is depending solely upon illustrated geometries to deduce the
components’ centers of mass. We agree with the Appellants that, if
Herman’s drawings are not drawn to scale, “they do not enable any
assumptions about the locations of the centers of mass.” (Reply Br. 4.)2
Absent the Examiner taking the position that Herman’s Figure 5 is drawn to
scale, findings contingent upon depicted shapes and sizes are questionable at
best.3
Furthermore, the Examiner’s annotations of Herman’s centers of mass
are premised upon the illustrated turbine-blade components having
“uniform” mass distributions. {See Answer 18—20.) For example, the
Examiner finds that “blade platforms are known in the art to have uniform
mass distribution” and so the center of mass of Herman’s platform “would
be located at its geometric center.” {Id. at 19.) However, the Appellants
2 See cf. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“When the reference does not disclose that the drawings
are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement
of the drawing features are of little value.”).
3 Alternatively, the Examiner could provide us with technical reasoning as to
why any inaccurate scaling in Herman’s drawings would not materially
change the findings regarding the components’ center of mass. Here,
however, the Examiner simply cites to case law. {See Final Action 3; see
also Answer 18.,)
5
Appeal 2015-008086
Application 13/005,733
offer evidence (Martin) that “[tjhere is no requirement in the art for turbine
blade platforms to have uniform mass distribution and uniform density.”
(Reply Br. 2.) Moreover, Herman’s drawings depict the platform as having
cooling channels and an undercut structure (see, e.g., Herman, Fig. 2), and
we agree with the Appellants that these features could plausibly suggest that
the platform has a non-uniform, rather than uniform, mass distribution. (See
Reply Br. 2—4.)
Consequently, the Examiner’s rejections all rely upon the incorrect
and/or unsupported finding that Herman’s drawings disclose a turbine blade
in which the components’ centers of mass are arranged in the claimed
manner. And the Examiner’s further findings with respect to the other prior
art references do not remedy the above-discussed shortcomings regarding
Herman’s disclosure of the claimed arrangement of the centers of mass.
(See, e.g., Final Action 11—23.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
6