Ex Parte Stampfli et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 201612779336 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 121779,336 117185 ALSTOM 7590 FILING DATE 05/13/2010 12/19/2016 C/O Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthias STAMPFLI 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. ATL3-PT055 8314 EXAMINER CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3729 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2016 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): ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHIAS STAMPFLI, MICHAEL SEEMANN, RETO MAITZ, RAPHAEL SCHWEIZER, AHMAD ZAKI BIN AHMAD ZAINUDDIN, and WARREN MIGLIETTI, Appeal2014-003033 Application 12/779,336 1 Technology Center 3700 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alstom Technology LTD. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2014-003033 Application 12/779,336 BACKGROUND According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates to the field of gas turbines ... [and] a method for reconditioning a turbine blade." Spec. i-f 3. CLAIMS Claims 1-8 are on appeal. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites: 1. A method for reconditioning a turbine blade, the turbine blade (10) comprises a blade airfoil (12) which extends in the longitudinal direction of the blade and which has a hollow inner space (18) into which inserts (14, 15, 16) can be inserted in the longitudinal direction of the blade for the distribution and guiding of cooling air which flows in the inner space (18), wherein the inserts (14, 15, 16) with a rib (20) engage with sealing effect in a U-shaped sealing groove (19) which is machined out on the inner wall of the blade airfoil (12) and extends in the longitudinal direction of the blade, the method compnsmg: removing the sealing groove from the inner wall of the blade airfoil, forming a slot (23), inserting an insertion strip (24), which is provided for sealing, into the slot (23), and connecting the insertion strip (24 ), which is seated in the slot (23), in a materially bonding manner to the inner wall of the blade airfoil (12). Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. 2 Appeal2014-003033 Application 12/779,336 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fukura2 in view of Jakobsen. 3 2. The Examiner rejects claims 2---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fukura in view of Jakobsen and Appellants' admitted prior art ("AAP A"). 3. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fukura in view of Jakobsen and Esch. 4 DISCUSSION Appellants raise specific arguments only with respect to claims 1-3, which are addressed separately below. Claim 1 With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Fukura discloses a turbine blade as recited in the claim preamble and that Fukura discloses "forming the initial sealing groove in a block brazed to a seat formed in the airfoil." Non-Final Act. 2-3 (citing Fukura Fig. 3); see also Final Act. 2 (indicating that the rejection is "maintained as in the Office Action mailed 12/15/2013"). The Examiner finds that Jakobsen teaches a method of repairing a damaged turbine air seal including the steps of cutting out the damaged portion of the seal to form a slot; inserting and brazing a material in the formed slot; and machining the insert to form a new seal. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Jakobsen Figs. 3---6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to utilize the same general process described in Jakobsen 2 Fukura, US 6,120,244, iss. Sept. 19, 2000. 3 Jakobsen, US 4,924,581, iss. May 15, 1990. 4 Esch, US 2002/0153405 Al, pub. Oct. 24, 2002. 3 Appeal2014-003033 Application 12/779,336 to repair damaged seals in Fukura's device to arrive at the claimed method. Id. Appellants raise two arguments: 1) that the combination does not disclose or suggest removing a sealing groove from an inner wall of a blade airfoil; and 2) that the combination does not disclose connecting an insertion strip in a materially bonding manner to an inner wall of a blade airfoil. Appeal Br. 4--8. As discussed below, we do not find these arguments persuasive. With respect to the first argument, Appellants first assert that Jakobsen's specific method could not be used to repair the inner sealing grooves in Fukura's device because Jakobsen's method is performed on a circular shaped seal body while Fukura's inner seals are not circular. Appeal Br. 4--5. However, the Examiner explains that the rejection does not rely on the specific method employed by Jakobsen and only relies on the fact that Jakobsen teaches the general steps claimed related to repairing a sealing groove. See Ans. 8-9. We agree with the Examiner's position. Jakobsen discloses a general method in the same field of endeavor as Fukura for repairing a sealing groove, and the particular removal method for the groove disclosed in Jakobsen is not relevant to the actual rejection. We note that claim 1 does not require a particular removal method, reciting only that the sealing groove is removed to form a slot, which occurs in Jakobsen's method. Also, we note that Fukura discloses a process for adding a sealing block, brazing it, and machining it to form a new seal and we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that those steps could be employed during a reconditioning process as claimed. Ans. 9. Thus, there is no reason to replace those steps with any of 4 Appeal2014-003033 Application 12/779,336 Jakobsen's specific steps when attempting to replace the sealing groove after it is removed. Ans. 9. Next, Appellants assert that Fukura teaches away from machining the inner wall because "Fukura does not recognize any benefit to treating the inner wall of the blade" and "Fukura references the blade's interior as being relatively inaccessible." Appeal Br. 5. We agree with the Examiner that the art need not acknowledge that damage may occur and that it "does not change the fact that, if damage were to occur, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to repair such damage by removing the damaged seal by machining, brazing a new seal block in its place, and machining it to form a new seal." Ans. 9. Also, the mere fact that Fukura's interior is relatively inaccessible does not disparage or discredit the approach taken in the claims. See In re Fulton 391 F.3d. 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[A] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant"). Appellants also assert under their first argument that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient reason supported by rational underpinnings to support the obviousness conclusion. Appeal Br. 7-8. We find that the Examiner has provided sufficient reasoning by concluding: Since both of the references are in the turbine art, and both specifically deal with air seals, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, if ever needing to repair a damaged seal such as that of Fukura, to completely remove the damaged structure, to form a seat. From this point on, the two references essentially overlap, in that both in a repair process as suggested by Jakobsen, and in the initial method of forming a seal, taught by Fukura, a metal piece is brazed to a slot and is machined to 5 Appeal2014-003033 Application 12/779,336 form an air seal. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to remove the damaged seal, in view of the teachings of Jakobsen, and to form a new seal as shown in steps 3 and 4 of Fig. 3 of Fukura. Since Fukura already utilizes machining methods specifically adapted for this particular application, it would have been obvious to utilize these same machining techniques when removing a damaged seal block. Ans. 7. Regarding Appellants' second argument, Appellants assert that the combination fails to disclose connecting an insertion strip to an inner wall of a blade airfoil because the Examiner acknowledged that Fukura does not do so and Jakobsen does not add anything to the inner wall of a blade airfoil. Appeal Br. 8. We are not persuaded for the reasons provided by the Examiner. Ans. 10. Specifically, as noted above, the combination does not rely on using Jakobsen's specific devices and method in Fukura's device and Fukura does in fact show how to add a seal to the inner wall of the airfoil during its initial construction. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not present separate arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 8, which ultimately depend from claim 1. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 for the same reasons. Claim 2 Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established that it would have been obvious to use electrical discharge machining ("EDM") as the process for removing the sealing groove as required by claim 2. Appeal Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds that electrical discharge machining was a known method in the art for machining metal, and because it is a conventional 6 Appeal2014-003033 Application 12/779,336 process, it would have been obvious to use. Non-Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that the Examiner cannot take official notice regarding this fact without providing evidentiary support. Appeal Br. 9. However, in the Answer, the Examiner provides citations to references showing the use of EDM. Ans. 11-12. Appellants do not respond to this evidence in the Reply Brief, and we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the unrebutted evidence that EDM was a known machining method. The remaining portions of Appellants' argument with respect to this claim relate to the use of Jakobsen's specific method in Fukura's device, which is unpersuasive for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 2. Claim 3 Appellants raise similar arguments with respect to claim 3 regarding official notice and also argue that the Examiner has not set forth sufficient rationale for the proposed modification of Fukura. Appeal Br. 10-11. We are not persuaded of error for the reasons discussed previously and for the reasons provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 13-15. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3. Appellants do not provide separate arguments with respect to claims 4---6, which depend from claim 3. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 4--6 for the same reasons. 7 Appeal2014-003033 Application 12/779,336 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-8. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation