Ex Parte Smith et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201612713410 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121713,410 02/26/2010 Kevin D. Smith 54549 7590 05/25/2016 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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. PA0012037U ;67097-1298PUS 1 4658 EXAMINER KHAN, AMINA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEVIN D. SMITH, JONATHAN P. SULLIVAN, and DAVID A. RAULERSON 1 Appeal2014-009522 Application 12/713 ,410 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES T. MOORE, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6 and 21-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-009522 Application 12/713 ,410 Appellants claim a turbine machinery inspection probe device 50 comprising a sensor assembly 54 for inducing an eddy current in a turbine machinery component 82 and a probe body 58 that holds a tip of the sensor assembly in a position spaced from a target surface 102 of the turbine machinery component when the probe body is in contact with a portion of the turbine machinery component (sole independent claim 1, Figures 2-5). The inspection probe device may include an actuator for selectively moving the probe body into contact with the portion of the turbine machinery component (dependent claim 26), and the target surface may be stationary relative to the probe body when in contact with each other (dependent claim 27). A copy of representative claims 1, 26, and 27, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A turbine machinery inspection probe device, comprising: a sensor assembly configured to induce an eddy current in a turbine machinery component; and a probe body that holds a tip of the sensor assembly in a position spaced from a target surface of the turbine machinery component when the probe body is in contact with a portion of the turbine machinery component, wherein the sensor assembly is configured to sense a parameter of the eddy current in the turbine machinery component, the sensed parameter used to calculate the position of the target surface relative to the probe body. 26. The turbine machinery inspection probe of claim 1, including an actuator to selectively move the probe body into contact with the portion of the turbine machinery component. 27. The turbine machinery inspection probe of claim 1, wherein target surface is stationary relative to the probe body when in contact with each other. 2 Appeal2014-009522 Application 12/713 ,410 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4---6, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chana (WO 2009/004319 A2, published Jan. 8, 2009). The Examiner also rejects claims 1---6 and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Draper et al. (US 2009/0178417 Al, published July 16, 2009) ("Draper"). Finally, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable: claims 26 and 27 over Draper in view of Granger, Jr. et al. (US 5,903,147, issued May 11, 1999) ("Granger"); and claims 25 and 26 over Chana in view of Granger. The§ 102 Rejections The Examiner interprets the turbine machinery component recited in claim 1 as encompassing the combination of turbine casing and blades disclosed by each of Chana and Draper (see, e.g., Final Action 3, 4, and 6). Appellants argue that the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonably broad and that a person having ordinary skill in this art, reading claim 1 in light of the Specification, would not make such an interpretation (App. Br. 4--5 (regarding Chana) and 9 (regarding Draper)). This argument is unpersuasive because Appellants do not identify any Specification disclosure in support thereof. Therefore, the record before us contains no evidence that the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Specification and contrary to an artisan's interpretation. As a consequence, Appellants' argument is little more than an unsupported assertion. Additionally, we emphasize that claim 1 is directed to a probe device, not the combination of a probe device and a turbine machinery 3 Appeal2014-009522 Application 12/713 ,410 component. For this reason, the claim merely requires a probe device having a probe body that is capable of being positioned and contacted with a turbine machinery component in the recited manner. Appellants do not provide the record with any argument that the respective probe devices of Chana and Draper lack such capability. For analogous reasons, Appellants' corresponding arguments regarding certain dependent claims, such as claim 2 (see, e.g., id. at 5 and 10), also are not persuasive. Appellants' arguments regarding the controller and computer features of claims 4, 6, 23, and 24 (id. at 5-7 and 11) are controverted by the disclosures of Chana (see, e.g., Figure 6, 9:9-18) and Draper (see, e.g., ii 20). Regarding the "directly adjacent" requirement of dependent claim 22, Appellants argue that the probe is not directly adjacent the blade in each of Chana and Draper because there is a gap there between (App. Br. 6 and 10). The deficiency of this argument is that Appellants do not explain why the claim phrase "directly adjacent" is considered to exclude such a gap. We perceive no convincing merit in Appellants' argument that "Draper fails to disclose multiple sensor assemblies within a probe body [as required by claim 3]" (id. at 10). This argument is undermined by Draper's express disclosure of a monitoring system comprising multiple proximity sensors mounted in a turbine casing (i-f 19). Appellants do not explain with any reasonable specificity why they believe claim 3 distinguishes over this express disclosure. 4 Appeal2014-009522 Application 12/713 ,410 Finally, with regard to claim 25, Appellants reiterate their unsuccessful claim 3 argument and further contend that "Draper also fails to disclose any controller calculating the position of more than one target surface [because] ... Draper discloses no calculating of the positions of the blades relative to each other" (App. Br. 11). Appellants' contention is contradicted by Draper's disclosure of assessing blade axial deformation by measuring locations of upstream and downstream blade surfaces with upstream and downstream proximity sensors whereby axial deformation is assessed by examining the successive measurements at both of these upstream and downstream surfaces (Draper i-f 26 (cited at Final Action 4)). We emphasize that Appellants do not address this disclosure of Draper. For the above-stated reasons, Appellants fail to reveal error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation in the§ 102 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-- 6, and 21-24 over Chana and claims 1---6 and 22-25 over Draper. We sustain, therefore, each of these rejections. The§ 103 Rejections In rejecting claims 26 and 27 over Draper in view of Granger and claims 25 and 26 over Chana in view of Granger, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the inspection probes of Draper [or Chana] by including movable actuators for the benefit of expandable positioning to better engage the surface for inspection and to have stationary target surfaces as Granger Jr. teaches these benefits as conventional in using eddy current sensors for inspecting all surfaces of gas turbine engines (Final Action 5 and 6). 5 Appeal2014-009522 Application 12/713 ,410 We agree with Appellants that the record does not support a prima facie case of obviousness for the Examiner's proposed combinations of these references (App. Br. 12-14, Reply Br. 4--5). As for the claim 25 rejection over Chana and Granger, both the Final Action and the Answer fail to address the claim limitation "wherein the controller is configured to calculate the position of the at least one second target surface relative to the first target surface" or Appellants' argument regarding this limitation (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5). Concerning commonly rejected claim 26, the Examiner fails to appreciate that the claimed actuator is for moving the probe body into contact with the component whereas the Granger actuator described by the Examiner comprises a probe extension member for expanding the probe sensor tip, not moving the probe body, to better engage the tip with the surface being inspected (see, e.g., Granger i1 bridging cols. 3--4). Therefore, combining Granger with Chana or Draper would not result in the claimed actuator. The Examiner's obviousness conclusion in rejecting claim 27 over Draper and Granger is based on conclusory statements without any articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to explain how and why an artisan would have modified Draper's system for monitoring deformation of turbine blades as the gas turbine is operating (Draper i-f 18) so as to result in a probe device for sensing a target surface that is stationary relative to the probe body as claimed. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of 6 Appeal2014-009522 Application 12/713 ,410 obviousness") quoted with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Tele.flex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Under these circumstances, we will not sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejections of claims 26 and 27 over Draper in view of Granger and claims 25 and 26 over Chana in view of Granger. Conclusion To the extent outlined above, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6 and 21-25 but do not affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 26 and 27. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part. 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-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation