Ex Parte Silvia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12704866 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
12/704,866 02/12/2010 Alan Joseph Silvia 241437-1 7112
80944 7590 04/04/2017
Hoffman Warniok T T .P
EXAMINER
540 Broadway
4th Floor
NARAGHI, ALI
Albany, NY 12207 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2896
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
ptocommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN JOSEPH SILVIA,1
WILLIAM EDWARD BABCOCK, SWAMI GANESH,
JONATHAN T. SALKIN, ROBIN CARL SCHWANT, and
LYLE B. SPIEGEL
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MARK NAGUMO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Alan Joseph Silvia, William Edward Babcock, Swami Ganesh,
Jonathan T. Salkin, Robin Carl Schwant, and Lyle B. Spiegel (“GE”) timely
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of all pending
claims 1—10, 12—18, and 20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as General Electric Company
(“GE”). (Appeal Brief, filed 15 May 2014 (“Br”), 1.)
2 Office Action mailed 29 November 2013 (“Final Rejection”; cited as
“FR”).
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods for welding joints that
are oriented horizontally (independent claims 1 and 12), and a turbine rotor
comprising two components joined by a weld (independent claim 15).
The ’866 Specification teaches that steam turbine rotors and similar devices
are often fabricated by gas-tungsten-arc welding (“GTAW”). (Spec. 1,11. 6—
7.) According to the Specification, “[a] deficiency with known GTAW
methods, and particularly hot wire GTAW methods, is their limitation to
welding in a flat position. That is, such methods involve welding with the
electrode facing downward into the weld joint.” (Id. at 14—16.)4 This
limitation is said to make it necessary to manipulate and move large
components to properly orient the weld joint, which in turn is said to
decrease the efficiency and increase the cost of fabrication. (Id. at 11. 17—
21.)
Figures 1 and 2, reproduced on the following page, illustrate the
relations between the pieces to be welded according to an embodiment of the
appealed claims. As shown in Figure 1, first component 1005 comprises a
first mating face 120 having a protrusion 122. (Id. at 4,11. 16—17.) Second
3 Application 12/704,866, Horizontal welding method and joint structure
therefor, filed 12 February 2010. We refer to the “’866 Specification,”
which we cite as “Spec.”
4 The Specification does not appear to explain why prior art GTAW must be
done with the electrode facing down into the weld joint.
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
component 200 comprises a second mating face 220 having a recess 222 into
which protrusion 122 may reside. {Id. at 11. 17—18.) As shown in Figure 2,
component 100 and component 200 in the joined position form joint 300.
Joint 300 is offset by distance 330 from the center line 320 of root
opening 300.
(Fig. 1 shows the separated components}
(Fig. 2 shows the components
aligned to form a joint}
Each component 100, 200, includes a concave face 130, 230
extending away from mating faces 120 and 220, respectively. Together,
concave faces 130 and 230 “form a root opening 310 (i.e., an opening
between the components along which a weld may be formed).” {Id. at 11. 22—
23.) “As such,” the Specification instructs, “deposition of a filler metal into
root opening 310 is facilitated by its angled shape. . . . Angles a and P are
each, independently, between about 0 degrees and about 10 degrees.”
{Id. at 5,11. 1—6.) The Specification explains further that “horizontal
plane 320 would lie along or parallel to the radial axes or radial planes of
first component 100 and second component 200.” {Id. at 11. 8—10.)
(Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below}
3
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
The orientation of the components and the welding equipment
according to the disclosed invention is illustrated in Figure 4, below.
{Fig. 4 shows the components being welded horizontally}
Longitudinal axes of components 110 and 210 are oriented substantially
vertically, along axis 140. {Id. at 6,11. 3—5.) Radial axes, e.g., 142,144,
and 242, 244, are oriented perpendicular to axis 140, and thus are
substantially horizontal. {Id. at 11. 5—6.) In the words of the Specification,
“[w]eld head 700 is shown welding 730 along joint 300 as a filler rod 720
deposits a filler metal into root opening 310.” {Id. at 11. 16—17.)
Comparison of Figures 2 and 4 indicates that horizontal plane 320, which
passes through root opening 310, is parallel to radial axes 142,144, etc. It
follows that for angles a and P sufficiently small, the top and bottom of the
root opening 310 are “substantially parallel” to the radial axes. (The
Specification does not use, let alone define, the term “substantially parallel.”
However, original claim 11 further limits the “substantially horizontally-
4
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
oriented root opening” recited in claim 1 by limiting the angles of the
concave faces relative to horizontal to between about zero and about ten
degrees. (Spec. 12.) Original claim 19 limits original claim 15 in an
analogous fashion. {Id. at 16.) Thus, it is reasonable to interpret the term
“substantially parallel” as encompassing deviations of up to about 20°, i.e.,
a ~ +10 and P ~ -10°.)
Claim 15 is representative and reads:
A turbine rotor comprising:
a first component having:
a first body,
a first mating face along a surface of the first body, the
first mating face including a protrusion; and
a first concave face extending away from the first
mating face and toward the first body, forming
a first sidewall substantially parallel to a radial axis of
the first component;
a second component having:
a second body,
a second mating face along a surface of the second
body, the second mating face including a recess having
a shape complimentary to a shape of the protrusion of
the first mating face; and
a second concave face extending away from the second
mating face and toward the second body, forming
a second sidewall substantially parallel to a radial axis
of the second component and substantially parallel to
the first sidewall;
a root opening between the first and second components
formed by the first and second concave faces; and
a joint within the root opening, the joint formed by the
protrusion and the recess and offset from a center of the
root opening.
(Claims App., Br. 12; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
5
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection6,7:
A. Claims 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in
view of Clark.8
Al. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Clark and Ryutaro.9
A2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Clark, Ryutaro, and Belloni.10
A3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Clark, Ryutaro, and Simon.* 11
A4. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Clark, Ryutaro, and Offer.12
A5. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
of the combined teachings of Clark and Harris.13
A6. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
of the combined teachings of Clark, Ryutaro, Murakami,14
Burgoon,15 and Harris.
6 Examiner’s Answer mailed 11 May 2015 (“Ans.”). (The Examiner’s
Answer mailed 15 July 2015 is substantively the same as to patentability.)
7 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013 effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute.
8 Robert E. Clark et al., Method of making a high temperature-low
temperature rotor for turbines, U.S. Patent No. 4,962,586 (1990).
9 Ryutaro Umagoe, Steam turbine rotor assembling method, JP 10-006010
(1998) (Espacenet abstract only).
10 Antonio Belloni, EP 1 148 966 B1 (2002).
11 Warner H. Simon and Mark J. Simon, U.S. Patent No. 5,227,609 (1993).
12 Henry Peter Offer, U.S. Patent No. 5,994,659 (1999).
13 Will Harris and Gerald L. Dasbach, U.S. Patent No. 7,647,681 B1 (2010).
14 Yasuo Murakami et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,347,098 (1994).
15 Charles E. Burgoon and Donald J. Reis, U.S. Patent No. 6,127,651 (2000).
6
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Initially, GE “objects to the Examiner’s refusal to enter the
amendment to claim 1 submitted in Appellants’ 21 January 2014 After Final
Amendment” (Br. 4,11. 3—4), as well as other perceived procedural
irregularities.16 We do not have jurisdiction over these matters, which are
addressable by petition, at various levels of formality, to the officials
designated by the Director. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181—183, and Manual of Patent
Examination Procedure, Chapter 1000, Matters decided by various U.S.
Patent and Trademark Officials.
Review of the record satisfies us that the claims presented in the
Claims Appendix to the Brief and the arguments presented for and against
patentability are appropriate for our substantive review.
We find initially that all substantive arguments for patentability focus
on whether Clark discloses, in Figures 2 and 5, reproduced infra, first and
second components having first and second sidewalls that are “substantially
parallel to a radial axis” of the respective components and substantially
parallel to one another, as required by each of the independent claims. In
particular, GE’s arguments for the patentability of method claims 1 and 12,
and their dependent claims do not address any of the steps recited in those
claims. (Br. 8—11.)
16 Response to Notification of Non-compliant Appeal Brief (2 June 2014);
Reply Brief (11 July 2015); Sur-Reply Brief (28 July 2015) (responding to a
second Examiner’s Answer mailed 15 July 2015).
7
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
{Clark, Figures 1 and 2, are reproduced below}
rxxx
7 r a,.........
"A 42,....If !>
V $ * 4 J 4f“V \"•’*N >
^ i | U ? ■; i
|T"XAT.Pi
'7' 7 , V ' ;« A
ak ' 6)
\\ L•••••••>; :•••. \
—x. 4- >*•" ..V -------— '
A A.-.-.-.y'v
i ■— V
V \ * I
- - . -t, i;
a
O ' 'A
— ' T " '
ts Vs
FISA
{Fig. 1: partial sectional view of a turbine containing rotor 1 with
segments 5 (left) and 3 (right)}
^ '1 I ...
x\l m n Lf; i
j/t
X /\ \x X. \23Af / A / / |
rsx\x\\\ ^*///s*va
29 ' • ; ■" ' ^
\ >■.sssss'Jj.. .sv NVsvs«\sv%v^%<.\.vv^f ^vj>Xx«.vxyXxx. ..yfr xxvX^.xV^>XV«; ,\V ••>>>»»
l':-. v'N: v-y> \l^'° A A A' A
- .V'tV'f* //X// . \' \ ,/ / ,/ /
\ VA-, \,J\j? V\ i X Xsr | f> *3 \ "■■■• I £ i K _
i I V * im CslsA V. j iWT V fe- I
{Fig. 2 shows a partial sectional view of two rotor segments 5 (left)
and 3 (right) aligned for welding}
Clark teaches, with reference to Figure 1, that hot (950°F, 510°C),
high pressure (1800 psi) steam (Clark col. 2,11. 60-63) is introduced to the
turbine through inlet nozzle 7 (id. at 11. 37—38), after which the steam flows
through nozzle block 9, whence it encounters stationary vanes 11 and
control stage rotatable blades 13 attached to high-temperature high-pressure
segment 3 of rotor 1 (id. at 11. 3 8 44). At point c, the temperature of the
steam has dropped to about 300°F (149°C) and the pressure has dropped to
about 18 psi. (Id. at col. 3,11. 1—2.) After passing blades 23 and 25 of low-
temperature, low-pressure segment 5, the steam temperature has dropped to
about 90°F (32°C) and the pressure is atmospheric. (Id. at 11. 3—5.) The
8
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
differences in temperatures and pressures invite the use of distinct materials
optimized for the distinct conditions of use. {Id. at col. 1,11. 12—36.)
As illustrated in Figure 2, rotor segment 3 has end face 27, which is
provided with a cavity 29 extending radially outward from longitudinal
center line 31 to first annular flange 35, which terminates as an axially
facing surface 37. {Id. at col. 3,11. 42 49.) Similarly, rotor segment 5 has
end face 39 with cavity 41 that extends radially outward from longitudinal
center line 43 to annular flange 47, which terminates as an axially facing
surface 49. {Id. at col. 3,1. 64, to col. 4,1. 3.)
Rotor segment 3 is welded to rotor segment 5 as indicated in Figure 1
by label w, and by label c in Figures 1 and 2. A close-up of the welding
region is shown in Figure 5, shown below.
(Fig. 5 shows welding root opening 61 between rotor segments 3 and 5}
In order to weld rotor segment 3 to rotor segment 5 across annular
flanges 35 and 47, a clad layer 51 is first welded to face 37. {Id. at col. 4,
11. 4—12.) Clad layer 51 is then machined to provide smooth surface 57 (see
9
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
Fig. 4, not reproduced here) with a first axially extending annular ring 59.
{Id. at 11. 25—35.) Rotor segment 3 is aligned along axial center line 31 with
axial center line 43 of rotor segment 5. {Id. at 11. 50—56.) Facing surface 57
of flange 35 and facing surface 49 of flange 47 form root opening 61
between them. {Id. at 56—60.) Facing surface 49 of second annular
flange 47 is machined to provide a second annular ring 63 with a step 65 so
first annular ring 59 overlies second annular ring 63 and seats within step 65.
{Id. at 11. 61—65.)
In Clark’s words, ‘”[b]y providing the inclined surfaces on the axially
facing surfaces of the flanges, the surfaces converge from the outer
surfaces 33 and 45 of the rotor segments 3 and 5 towards the common axial
center line of the rotor segments to form a V-shaped welding root
opening 61.” {Id. at 4,1. 68, through col. 5,1. 4; emphasis added.)
Clark teaches that welding at line w in Figure 1 “provides free access
to welding at a straight cylindrical location not interrupted by changing
diameters caused by blade grooves.” {Id. at col. 5,11. 57—64.) Preferred
welding methods include GTAW. {Id. at col. 6,11. 7—8.)
The Examiner finds that the welded turbine rotor described by Clark
meets all the limitations recited in claim 15. (FR 2—3.)
GE’s initial criticism, that it is not clear what portion of Figure 2 the
Examiner refers to as the radial axis of the first component (Br. 5,11. 1—7), is
not persuasive of harmful error, given that Clark is illustrating a rotary steam
turbine, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. We have no difficulty discerning
that the radial axis is perpendicular to longitudinal axis 31-43, and is
“vertical” in the plane of the page, viewed in the ordinary orientation.
10
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
GE’s principal argument for patentability is that the inclined surfaces
described by Clark show that root opening 61 does not have sidewalls
substantially parallel to a radial axis of the first component. (Br. 6,11. 1—8.)
GE cites the Declaration of Dr. Andrew Witney17 as supporting the
contention that the arrangement shown in Clark could not be used to form a
weld in a horizontal position. {Id. at 6,1. 9, to 7,1. 2.) Dr. Witney testifies
that “the non-parallel sidewalls would result in a root opening that increases
in size and requires the deposition of more weld material with each weld
pass.” (Witney 2, | 5.)
These arguments are not persuasive of harmful error. As the
Examiner points out, “the term [^substantially parallel[’] does not clearly
limit at what degree they are parallel.” (Br. 3, last two lines.) As we have
found, the ’866 Specification does not define (nor does it even use) the term
“substantially parallel.” Dr. Witney’s testimony does not provide credible
evidence that the inclination of the walls of root opening 61 is so large as to
be beyond the reasonable meaning of “substantially parallel.” His statement
that more weld material would be required with each weld pass would
appear to be true of the root openings illustrated in Specification Figure 4,
and thus does not serve to distinguish the claimed structure from the weld
illustrated by Clark.
GE raises no distinct issues as harmful error with respect to
independent claim 15, or in any of the remaining claims.
We therefore affirm the appealed rejections.
17 Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Andrew Witney,
filed 15 August 2013, during examination (“Witney”).
11
Appeal 2015-006779
Application 12/704,866
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1—10, 12—18, and 20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
12