Ex Parte Ress et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

12978843 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 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.
12/978,843 12/27/2010 Robert A. Ress JR. 27163-243038/LWAG10654 1972
120158 7590 01/31/2017
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Rolls-Royce)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
PETERS, BRIAN O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 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):
indocket @ btlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT A. RESS, JR., JAMES MORTON, and DAN MOLNAR
Appeal 2015-004001
Application 12/978,843
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert A. Ress, Jr. et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—17, and
19-22, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 4—8. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Rolls-Royce
North American Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004001
Application 12/978,843
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to “gas turbine engines with
variable camber vane systems.” Spec. 2.2 Claims 1, 10, and 16 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A variable camber vane system for a gas turbine
engine, comprising:
a first airfoil portion having a first tip portion, a first root
portion, a face extending at least partially between the first tip
portion and the first root portion, and a groove in the face
extending at least partially between the first tip portion and the
first root portion, wherein the groove has a groove width;
a second airfoil portion arranged to rotate to a plurality of
pivot positions with respect to the first airfoil portion about a
pivot axis, wherein the second airfoil portion includes a second
tip portion; a second root portion; and a crown extending at
least partially between the second tip portion and the second
root portion, wherein the crown includes a crown radius
centered about the pivot axis and positioned opposite the
groove; and
a seal strip having a seal width greater than the groove
width and a preformed concave rubbing surface such that prior
to installation the rubbing surface includes a radius
complementary to and opposite the crown radius, wherein the
seal strip is at least partially disposed in the groove with an
interference fit; and wherein the seal strip is arranged to seal
against fluid flow between the first airfoil portion and the
second airfoil portion in any of the plurality of pivot positions.
2 We note that Appellants’ Specification does not provide line or
paragraph numbering; accordingly, reference herein is made only to page
numbers.
2
Appeal 2015-004001
Application 12/978,843
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Amos US 3,990,810 Nov. 9, 1976
Horvath US 6,045,325 Apr. 4, 2000
Sobel US 6,099,281 Aug. 8, 2000
Wood US 2007/0119150 A1 May 31,2007
Campbell US 7,316,539 B2 Jan. 8, 2008
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 4—7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19-22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amos and
Campbell. Final Act. 4—9.
II. Claims 2, 12, 13, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amos, Campbell, and
Sobel. Id. at 9-10.
III. Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Amos, Campbell, and Horvath. Id. at
10-11.
IV. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Amos, Campbell, and Wood. Id. at 11—12.
3
Appeal 2015-004001
Application 12/978,843
ANALYSIS
Rejection I— Claims 1, 4—7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19—22 as
unpatentable over Amos and Campbell
Appellants argue against the rejection of claims 1, 4—7, 10, 11, 15, 16,
and 19-22 as a group. See Appeal Br. 5—8. We select independent claim 1
as representative of the issues that Appellants present in the appeal of this
rejection, with claims 4—7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19—22 standing or falling
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner found that Amos discloses a variable camber vane
system for a gas turbine engine, substantially as claimed, including
a seal strip (Amos, 50) having a seal width greater than the
groove width (Amos, Fig. 4) and a rubbing surface (Amos, 50a)
opposite the crown radius, wherein the seal strip (Amos, 50) is at
least partially disposed in the groove with an interference fit
(Amos, Fig. 4); and wherein the seal strip is arranged to seal
against fluid flow between the first airfoil portion and the second
airfoil portion in any of the plurality of pivot positions (Amos,
col 3 In. 34-42).
Final Act. 4—5. Next, the Examiner acknowledged that “Amos does not
teach that the rubbing surface is a preformed concave shape with a radius
complementary to the crown radius.” Id. at 5. However, the Examiner
found that “Campbell teaches a vane assembly wherein the vane has two
distinct segments (Campbell, 12 and 14) joined together by a seal
(Campbell, 50) having a preformed concave shape.” Id. (citing Campbell,
Figs. 2 A—B).3 The Examiner concluded that, given the teachings of the prior
3 The Examiner also cited to Horvath and Sobel (see Final Act. 5),
which we understand to provide additional evidence as to knowledge of
complementary concave seals being within the level of understanding of one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
4
Appeal 2015-004001
Application 12/978,843
art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify the rubbing surface of Amos’s seal to have “a
preformed concave shape with a radius complementary to the crown radius
... in order to mate with the convex crown of a vane segment and fully seal
against the penetration of hot combustion gases penetrating the gap between
the pressure and suction sides of the vane.” Id. (citing Campbell, col. 7,
11. 38-48).
Appellants argue that Campbell does not disclose or suggest
a second airfoil portion being pivoted relative to a first airfoil
portion, let alone a seal having a concave rubbing surface with a
radius substantially identical to and opposite the crown radius,
wherein the seal strip is arranged to seal against fluid flow
between the first airfoil portion and the second airfoil portion in
any of the plurality of pivot positions.
Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellants assert that “insert (50) of Campbell
is explicitly configured to permit internal fluid flow between . . . forward
and aft segments (12, 14) at certain radial cross section locations as shown in
Figs. 2A and 2B.” Id. This argument is not persuasive because it is not
responsive to the rejection as presented. Namely, the Examiner did not rely
on Campbell for teaching a pivoting second airfoil portion or a seal strip that
seals fluid flow between airfoil portions. See Final Act. 4—5. Instead, as the
Examiner explains, “Campbell is merely used to teach that the shape of a
seal between two segments of an airfoil may have a preformed concave
shape.” Ans. 11. We additionally note that Appellants do not contest the
Examiner’s finding that Campbell discloses a preformed concave-shaped
seal. See id. at 5; Appeal Br .passim.
Appellants assert that Campbell’s “insert (50) is not configured to
permit rotation between . . . forward and aft segments (12, 14) and therefore
5
Appeal 2015-004001
Application 12/978,843
would clearly not be operable with Amos.” Appeal Br. 6. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument because this assertion is merely
speculative, and it appears to rely on bodily incorporation of specific
structural details of Campbell (i.e., the entirety of insert 50) into Amos,
which is neither the standard for an obviousness determination, nor is it an
accurate characterization of the rejection presented. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, Appellants do not explain how combining the teachings of
Amos and Campbell in an operable manner would be beyond the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007). As the Examiner explains, the rejection proposed modifying
“[t]he seal of Amos . . . according to Campbell to have a concave shaped
seal that perfectly mates with the convex crown of an airfoil portion in order
to fully seal against the penetration of hot combustion gases between the
pressure and suction sides of the vane.” Ans. 11. Appellants do not offer
any factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to explain why
modifying Amos’s seal to have a preformed concave shape would prevent
rotation of the second airfoil portion or render Amos’s system inoperable.
Appellants also argue that Campbell is non-analogous art. See Appeal
Br. 6—7. In particular, Appellants assert that “Campbell is not in the field of
variable camber vanes,” and “the teachings of Campbell are not reasonably
pertinent to the problems faced by the inventor of the present application.”
Id. at 7. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The proper two-
prong test to define the scope of analogous prior art is (1) “whether the art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed,” and
(2) even “if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor,
6
Appeal 2015-004001
Application 12/978,843
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted).
In this regard, Campbell is analogous art at least because the reference
is in the field of Appellants’ endeavor of gas turbine engines. In particular,
Campbell “relates in general to turbine engines and, more particularly, to
turbine vanes.” Campbell, col. 1,11. 6—7. Appellants’ Specification
describes that “[t]he present invention relates to gas turbine engines, and
more particularly, to gas turbine engines with variable camber vane
systems.” Spec. 2. Additionally, claim 1 calls for “[a] variable camber vane
system for a gas turbine engine,” and independent claims 10 and 16 each call
for “[a] gas turbine engine.” Appeal Br. 9, 11, 12, Claims App. Appellants’
contention that the field of endeavor should be restricted to “variable camber
vanes” (see id. at 7) is too narrow a field of endeavor in light of Appellants’
full disclosure.
After careful consideration of all the evidence, Appellants’ arguments
do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning in support
of the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, and of claims 4—7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19-22 falling therewith,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amos and Campbell.
Rejections II—IV— Claims 2, 8, 9, 12—14, and 17 as
unpatentable over Amos, Campbell, and one of Sobel, Horvath, and Wood
With respect to the rejections of claims 2, 8, 9, 12—14, and 17,
Appellants do not set forth any additional substantive arguments separate
from the arguments discussed supra', instead, relying on dependency from
7
Appeal 2015-004001
Application 12/978,843
independent claims 1, 10, and 16. See Appeal Br. 7—8. Thus, for the same
reasons that Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in Rejection I,
Appellants also do not apprise us of error in Rejections II—IV. We likewise
sustain the rejections of claims 2, 8, 9, 12—14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amos, Campbell, and one of Sobel,
Horvath, and Wood.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—7, 10, 11,
15, 16, and 19—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Amos and Campbell.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 12, 13, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amos, Campbell,
and Sobel.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amos, Campbell, and
Horvath.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amos, Campbell, and Wood.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8