Ex Parte Schoenenborn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2016

11816079 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111816,079 08/10/2007
23911 7590 02/10/2016
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harald Schoenenborn
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.
Ol 1235.59262US 4812
EXAMINER
WILENSKY, MOSHE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2016 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARALD SCHOENENBORN
Appeal2013-010890
Application 11/816,079
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Harald Schoenenbom (Appellant) seeks review, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a), of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 13-15, 19, and 23-34.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-010890
Application 11/816,079
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a method for machining an
integrally bladed rotor of a fluid-flow engine, specifically of an integrally
bladed compressor rotor for a gas turbine." See Substitute Spec. i-f 2 (filed
Aug. 10, 2007). Claims 13, 25, and 34 are independent. Claim 13 is
reproduced below with emphasis added:
13. A method for machining an integrally
bladed rotor of a fluid-flow machine, comprising
the steps of:
a) providing an integrally bladed rotor
having a main rotor body and several rotor blades
integrally attached to the main rotor body;
b) determining a natural frequency of each
rotor blade of the integrally bladed rotor; and
c) machining at least one rotor blade of the
integrally bladed rotor by removing material to
adjust the natural frequency of the at least one
rotor blade to a specified value;
wherein the at least one rotor blade of the
integrally bladed rotor is machined through
material removal in an area of a radially inward
lying transition section between the main rotor
body and the rotor blade such that a radius of a
fillet formed between the main rotor body and the
rotor blade of the integrally bladed rotor varies as a
result of the material removal.
EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Brafford US 6,042,338 March 28, 2000
Roy US 2004/0241003 Al Dec. 2, 2004
Heilenbach US 2005/0160598 Al July 28, 2005
Martin US 7,024,744 B2 Apr. 11, 2006
2
Appeal2013-010890
Application 11/816,079
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL1
1. Claims 13, 19, 24--26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Brafford, Martin, and Roy.
2. Claims 14, 15, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Brafford, Martin, Roy, and Heilenbach.
3. Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brafford, Martin, Roy, and Official Notice.
4. Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brafford, Martin, and Roy.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 - The rejection of claims 13, 19,
24-26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The independent claims in this group-----claims 13 and 25-both recite
that a rotor blade "is machined through material removal in an area of a
radially inward lying transition section between the [or a] main rotor body
and the rotor blade." Appeal Br. 14, 15 (Claims App.); see also Substitute
Spec. i-f 21 (identified regarding these limitations (Appeal Br. 3)).
Addressing these limitations, the Examiner begins by stating that
"Brafford does not explicitly teach removing material from the base of the
1 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected (1) claims 13, 19,
24--26, 28-30, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Brafford and Roy, (2) claims 14, 15, 23, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brafford, Roy, and Heilenbach, and (3) claims 31 and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brafford, Roy, and Official
Notice. See Final Act. 2-9 (dated July 20, 2012). In the Answer, the
Examiner withdraws these three rejections, and designates Rejection 4 listed
above as a New Ground of Rejection. See Ans. 10.
3
Appeal2013-010890
Application 11/816,079
blades, where the blades meet the rotor hub," but that "it would have been
obvious to modify Brafford to remove material in this region in view of the
teachings of Roy and Martin." Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, Roy
teaches ( 1) "a method of tuning the natural frequency of a blade 13 by
adding a recess 21 on the pressure side surface 17 of the blade," (2) "that the
recess 21 alters the natural frequency of the blade 13" (citing Roy i-f 24 ), (3)
"that the farther the recess 21 is from the blade root 14 the larger the effect
on the natural frequency" (citing Roy i-f 25), (4) "that the particular
dimension and location of the recess depend entirely upon the specific
geometry of the blades," and (5) "that reduction of any weight on the
cantilever blade structure will have maximum effect the further the recess is
positioned from the blade root" (citing Roy i-f 25). Ans. 5.
Based on the teachings above, the Examiner determines that one of
ordinary skill in the art would make the following inferences: "First, that a
recess closer to the blade tip will have a greater effect on frequency, but
second, that a recess on the root will still have some quantifiable effect on
frequency." Id.; see also id. ("MPEP [§] 2144.01 states that it is [']proper to
take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.'"). Thus, the Examiner "concludes that Roy teaches that a
recessed portion, such as the one used in Brafford, may alter the natural
frequency of a blade at any location on the blade." Id.
According to the Examiner, "[t]he conclusion that a recess near the
blade root can controllably affect the frequency is further strengthened by
Martin," which, the Examiner states, "teaches machining material away
from either the mounting portion or the blade base." Id. (citing Martin, col.
4
Appeal2013-010890
Application 11/816,079
2, 1. 65 - col. 3, 1. 3, Figs. 2--4). The Examiner states that "the prior art
teaches the concept of controlling blade frequency by machining away
material from the lower root side of the blade system." Ans. 5---6. The
Examiner then determines that "one of ordinary skill after reading both Roy
and Martin would infer that the frequency of a [bladed disk] blade can also
be controlled by recesses in any portion of the airfoil, including the region
where the airfoil meets the base (the blade root region)." Id. at 6. The
Examiner also sets forth two rationales why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified the method of Brafford, based on the teachings and
inferences discussed above, to allegedly satisfy the limitation at issue. Id.
We determine that the record does not support the inferences relied
upon (at least in part) to address the limitations at issue. The Examiner and
Appellant appear to agree that the explicit teachings of Roy address recesses
on the pressure side surface of the cantilever blade structure. Compare Ans.
5, with Appeal Br. 6, 7; see also Roy, Fig. 2 (showing pressure side surface
17). Although the Examiner highlights the statement from Roy that "the
particular dimension and location of the recess 21 depend entirely upon the
specific geometry of the blades 13 which it is applied" (Roy i-f 25 (emphasis
added)), in the context of the reference as a whole, that statement still refers
to "a recess 21 or dimple in the pressure side surface 17 of the blade 13"
rather than any location on the entire blade. Roy i-f 24; see also id., i-fi-125-26
(discussing potential locations for recesses on the cantilever blade structure).
As to the inferences based on the teachings of Roy alone (Ans. 5), we
agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 8) that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not view Roy as implicitly disclosing the removal of material from
any location on a blade (including the claimed transition section between the
5
Appeal2013-010890
Application 11/816,079
main rotor body and the rotor blade). To view Roy as implicitly disclosing
the removal of material from any location on the blade would, on the record
here, extend further than inference.
Finally, as asserted by Appellant (Reply Br. 7), the teachings of
Martin do not provide sufficient additional evidence to support the
inferences based on the teachings of Roy and Martin together (Ans. 6). The
Examiner and Appellant appear to agree that the explicit teachings of Martin
address recesses in a mounting portion of a blade. Compare Ans. 5---6, with
Appeal Br. 11, Reply Br. 6-7; see also Martin, Figs. 3, 4 (showing base or
mounting portion 30).2 Although we agree with the Examiner that Martin,
Brafford, and Roy collectively teach various locations on pressure side
surfaces or mounting portions from which material could be removed to alter
frequency (Ans. 11 ), we do not agree, based on the record here, that such
explicit disclosures adequately support the inferences relied upon to support
the rejection. See Ans. 5, 6, 11, 12.
Thus, we do not sustain the decision to reject claims 13 and 25, and do
not sustain the decision to reject claims 19 and 24 (which depend from claim
13) and claims 26 and 28-30 (which depend from claim 25).
2 The record here does not support the Examiner's finding that
"Martin teaches machining material away from either the mounting portion
or the blade base." Ans. 5 (emphasis added). Although Martin does discuss
"[t]he removal of material from the stator blade base or mounting portion
for purposes of tuning the natural frequency of the airfoil," (col. 2, 11. 65---67
(emphasis added)), Martin identifies these as the same structure, using
reference numeral 30. See Martin, col. 2, 11. 33, 37, 48 (discussing "base or
mounting portion 30").
6
Appeal2013-010890
Application 11/816,079
Rejection 2 -The rejection of claims 14, 15, 23, and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 14, 15, and 23 depend from claim 13, and claim 27 depends
from claim 25. Appeal Br. 14, 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not
rely on Heilenbach to remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of
Brafford, Martin, and Roy, discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the
decision to reject claims 14, 15, 23, and 27.
Rejection 3 -The rejection of claim 31and32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 31 depends from claim 13 and claim 32 depends from claim 25.
Id. at 16. The Examiner does not rely on Official Notice to remedy the
deficiencies in the combined teachings of Brafford, Martin, and Roy,
discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the decision to reject claims 31
and 32.
Rejection 4-The rejection of claim 33 and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 33 depends from claim 13. Id. In the New Ground of
Rejection, the Examiner does not address the deficiencies in the combined
teachings of Brafford, Martin, and Roy, discussed above. See Ans. 10.
Thus, we do not sustain the decision to reject claim 33.
Independent claim 34 recites, inter alia, "modifying the natural
frequency of the rotor blade by removing material in an area of a radially
inward lying transition section between a main rotor body and the rotor
blade." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). For claim 34, the Examiner relies on
the same deficient findings and conclusions with regard to Brafford, Martin,
7
Appeal2013-010890
Application 11/816,079
and Roy as discussed above. See Ans. 10 (stating that claim 34 "is rejected
for the same reasons as claim 13"). Thus, we do not sustain the decision to
reject claim 34.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 13-15, 19, and 23-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8