Ex Parte Suljak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2015

11752945 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte GEORGE T. SULJAK JR.
________________

Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI,
and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

George T. Suljak Jr. (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–22.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a vane arrangement for a gas
turbine engine. Specification ¶ 27 (Abstract). Claims 1, 8, and 13 are
independent, and claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on
appeal.
1. A turbine nozzle segment for a gas turbine engine
comprising:
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

2

a fixed turbine vane; and
a rotational turbine vane adjacent said fixed turbine vane,
said rotational turbine vane rotatable about an axis of rotation
aft of a geometric center of gravity of said rotational turbine
vane.
Appeal Br. 10, Claims App.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER

Paetz US 2,819,732 Jan. 14, 1958
Burge US 3,079,128 Feb. 26, 1963
Le Bell US 3,237,918 Mar. 1, 1966
Barreto US 6,602,047 B1 Aug. 5, 2003
Loudet US 7,264,441 B2 Sept. 4, 2007
McCaffrey US 8,105,019 B2 Jan 31, 2012

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double-patenting as unpatentable over claim 14 of
McCaffrey and Loudet.
1

Claims 1–3, 7, 8, 11–15, and 17–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Paetz and Burge.
2

Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Paetz, Burge, and Le Bell.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Paetz, Burge, and Barreto.

1
The rejection of claims 1–3 and 8–11 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double-patenting as unpatentable over McCaffrey and
Loudet is withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 3.
2
Claim 15 should have been included in the heading because the rejection of
claim 15 over Paetz and Burge is explained under this heading. See Ans. 6,
12.
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

3

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 13 and 14 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double-patenting as unpatentable over claim 14 of
McCaffrey and Loudet
Appellant does not present arguments for the rejection of claims 13
and 14 on the ground of obviousness-type double-patenting. See Appeal Br.
3. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 13 and 14 on this ground is
summarily sustained.

The rejection of claims 1–3, 7, 8, 11–15, 17–22 as unpatentable over
Paetz and Burge
Claims 1, 8, and 13
The Examiner finds that Paetz teaches “[a] turbine nozzle segment for
a gas turbine engine (10) comprising: a fixed turbine vane (43); and a
rotational turbine vane (48) adjacent said fixed turbine vane, said rotational
turbine vane rotatable about an axis of rotation (49).” Ans. 7. The Examiner
further finds Paetz does not teach that an axis of rotation of the rotational
vane is aft of the geometric center of gravity of the vane, wherein the
rotational vane is rotated by a unison ring; and the Examiner relies on Burge
to teach this feature. Id. The Examiner finds that Figure 3 of Burge depicts
an axis of rotation offset from a midpoint of the blade in a direction away
from the leading edge of the blade. Id. The Examiner further finds that the
leading edge of the blade in Burge has more material than the edge closer to
the axis, and “therefore the geometric center would be biased towards the
leading edge in relation [to] the midpoint.” Id. The Examiner thus
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

4

concludes it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
to modify the vanes of Paetz to include a unison ring as taught by Burge
because this modification would be the “simple substitution of one known
element for another to obtain predictable results.” Ans. 17 (paraphrasing
KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417). The Examiner uses the
same rationale for the modification to Paetz to position the axis of rotation
aft of the center of gravity of the vane, as disclosed by Burge. Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Paetz is
inadequate, asserting, “a statement that modifications to the prior art would
have been ‘well within the ordinary skill of the art at the time the claimed
invention was made and could have been implemented by one of ordinary
skill with predictable results’” is insufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. Appeal Br. 4. Additionally, Appellant asserts, “[o]ne of
ordinary skill would not consider it obvious to use the unison ring of Burge
because Paetz already discloses a control ring to move the vanes.” Reply Br.
2. Appellant asserts, “one of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable
expectation of success so as to establish there would be predictable results in
the proposed combination.” Id.
It is well established that, “when a patent claims a structure already
known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element
for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a
predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Given that the rotational turbine
vane (48) of Paetz and the rotational vane of Burge are both used to control
fluid flow through a turbine engine, the Examiner has a sound basis for
finding that the vane taught by Burge would have been a suitable substitute
for the vane taught by Paetz. Likewise, Examiner has a sound basis for
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

5

concluding that the unison ring 18 taught by Burge would have been a
suitable substitute for the rotational mechanism taught by Paetz. Ans. 7.
Appellant’s argument that “Paetz already discloses a control ring to move
the vanes,” Reply Br. 2, ignores the rationale set forth by the Examiner, that
the modification is the “simple substitution of one known element for
another to obtain predictable results.” Ans. 17 (paraphrasing KSR, 550 U.S.
398, 417). Appellant provides no persuasive reason why a person of
ordinary skill in the art could not have implemented such a substitution.
Neither does Appellant provide any persuasive reason why the results of the
substitution would have been unpredictable. Thus, the Examiner is correct
in concluding that such a substitution would have been obvious.
Appellant also asserts that “the rejection is improper because the
proposed combination renders Paetz unsuitable for its intended purpose.”
Appeal Br. 5. Appellant states, “[t]he intended purpose - forward and aft
motion - of Paetz . . . to open or close the nozzle so as to increase or
decrease the flow area would be undermined by the proposed combination.”
Appeal Br. 5. Appellant asserts that this would occur because “Burge
provides rotational movement, not the forward and aft motion as disclosed in
Paetz.” Id. at 6.
We agree with the Examiner’s statement, “the purpose of Paetz is to
alter the flow through the vanes. The forward and aft motion of the vane is
just the method of varying the flow that Paetz uses.” Ans. 18. We are not
persuaded that modifying the method by which Paetz increases or decreases
the flow through its vanes renders Paetz unsuitable for its intended use.
Appellant also asserts, “Burge does not disclose a geometric center of
gravity, an axis of rotation, or any relationship therebetween.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

6

Appellant states, “the blade [taught by Burge] could have different
compositions of materials, or different densities of the same material, in
different areas such as the trailing edge half could be heavier. Burge does
not teach the characteristics of material in the airfoil.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant does not point to any persuasive evidence in the record
supporting the conclusion that the blade taught by Burge is composed of
materials with different densities, or of one material with varying densities
such that the “trailing edge would be heavier” than otherwise understood
from the geometry depicted in the drawings of Burge. The Examiner refers
to Figure 3 of Burge as evidence that there is more material on the half of
the blade including the leading edge than on the half of the blade including
the trailing edge. Ans. 19. It is clear from Figure 3 that the Examiner is
correct. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion, based on
the shape of the blade depicted in the drawings, “the geometric center would
be biased towards the leading edge in relation from the midpoint.” Id. at 7.
Although we have carefully considered all of Appellant’s arguments
for claims 1, 8, and 13, we are not persuaded that the positions taken by the
Examiner with respect to the obviousness of claims 1, 8, and 13 are in error,
and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Appellant does not make separate arguments for any of claims 2, 3, 7,
11, 12, 14, 15, and 17–22, which each depend, directly or indirectly, from
one of claims 1, 8, and 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims as unpatentable over Paetz and Burge.
The rejection of claims 4 and 5 as unpatentable over Paetz, Burge,
and Le Bell
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

7

The Examiner finds that Paetz does not teach a rod mounted through a
rotational turbine vane as recited in dependent claim 4 and relies on Le Bell
to teach this feature. Ans. 14–15. The Examiner states, “Le Bell is being
used as a substitute to the projections and trunnions [taught by Paetz] to
accomplish the same goal, rotate the vane.” Id. at 20.
Appellant asserts the Examiner’s rationale for combining Paetz,
Burge, and Le Bell lacks rational underpinning. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
states, “[t]he rejection is improper because the Examiner supports the
finding of obviousness by providing only conclusory statements that the
claimed configurations were known and could have been implemented.”
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also asserts “the Examiner has not established that
there would be a reasonable expectation of success in the proposed
combination of using the projections and trunnions of Le Bell with the
system of Paetz as modified to include a unison ring and geometric center of
gravity of Burge. Reply Br. 4–5.
Le Bell, like Paetz, discloses a vane configuration which may be
rotated to control the flow through a turbine. Le Bell, col. 1, ll. 8–9. The
Examiner’s proposed modification substitutes Le Bell’s vane (and rod
extending through the cavity of the vane) for the rotatable vane in Paetz,
which does not include a rod. Appellant provides no persuasive reason why
a person of ordinary skill in the art could not have implemented such a
substitution. Nor does Appellant provide a persuasive reason why the
results of the substitution would have been unpredictable. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding that such a substitution
would have been obvious.
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

8

The rejection of claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Paetz, Burge,
and Barreto
Claim 9
The Examiner finds that Paetz does not teach that its annular inner and
outer vane platforms “are formed from a respective multiple of outer vane
platform segments and a multiple of inner vane platform segments,” as
recited in dependent claim 9. Ans. 15. The Examiner relies on Baretto to
teach this feature. Id. at 16. Regarding his rationale for combining Paetz
and Baretto, the Examiner “points to the exemplary rationale of
[substitution] outlined above.” Ans. 21. The Examiner further states, “[t]he
combination does not alter the function of Paetz and if the rotational vanes
and fixed vanes of Paetz were made as doublets there would be a predictable
result that the turbine stage would work in the same manner but instead have
half as many blade segments due to the inclusion of two components per
segment.” Id. Apparently as a second rationale, the Examiner states,
“[d]oublets are commonly used within the art to reduce manufacture time
and to increase stability of the turbine during use due to the connection of
two adjacent vanes together.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant asserts, “Barreto does not disclose the use of doublets with
rotational vanes. Therefore, it would not be obvious to make the proposed
modification of Paetz, as modified by Burge, which include rotational vanes,
for the reasons cited by the Examiner because none of the references
disclose doublets used with rotational vanes.” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis
added).
We do not agree with Appellant on this point. The Examiner does not
rely on Barreto for rotational vanes inasmuch as the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

9

Paetz discloses fixed vanes in combination with rotational vanes. See Ans.
7. The Examiner relies on Barreto to teach outer and inner platform
segments. Ans. 16. Noting, as Appellant does, that none of the references
disclose doublets used with rotational vanes does not address the
combination of references or the rationale for the combination of references
set forth by the Examiner.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner’s above-noted rationale
based on substitution is inadequate, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner’s secondary rationale is inadequate. Appellant asserts, “Barreto
discloses manufacture time is reduced due to integral casting of the doublets
with other components, not the connection of vanes (Barreto, col. 4, ll. 42–
46).” Reply Br. 5.
Barreto states, “[b]ecause doublets 53 can be fabricated with an
investment casting process including integral pins 128, turbulators 122, and
slots 80, manufacturing costs associated with doublets 53 are reduced in
comparison to other known nozzle assemblies.” Barreto, col. 4, ll. 42–46.
Accordingly, the investment casting of the doublets in Barreto reduces
manufacturing costs in comparison to other nozzle assemblies. Thus, it is
clear the Examiner is correct in finding there is a benefit to using the
doublets disclosed by Burge, albeit the benefit is reduced manufacturing cost
rather than reduced manufacturing time. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 over Paetz, Burge, and Barreto.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites “wherein each of said multiple of outer vane
platform segments and said multiple of inner vane platform segments
include at least one of said rotational turbine vane between a first fixed
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

10

turbine vane and a second fixed turbine vane.” Appeal Br. 11, Claims App.
(emphasis added).
Appellant asserts that each of Paetz, Burge, and Barreto fails to
disclose the subject matter recited in claim 10, and “one of ordinary skill
would not modify a reference disclosing this feature with the doublets of
Barreto because Barreto teaches doublets with a pair (2) of vanes.” Reply
Br. 6.
We agree with Appellant on this issue because claim 10 requires three
vanes per outer and inner vane platform segments. See Appeal Br. 11,
Claims App. In contrast, Barreto’s doublets 53 include only a pair of vanes
52. See Barreto, col. 2, ll. 56–61 and Fig. 2; see also Ans. 21. Therefore,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.

DECISION
Although we have carefully considered all of Appellant’s arguments,
we are not persuaded that the positions taken by the Examiner with respect
to the obviousness of claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–15, and 17–22 are in error.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 14 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double-patenting over claim 14 of McCaffrey
and Loudet is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 7, 8,
11–15, and 17–22 as unpatentable over Paetz and Burge is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5 as unpatentable over Paetz,
Burge, and Le Bell is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as
unpatentable over Paetz, Burge, and Barreto is AFFIRMED. The
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Paetz, Burge, and
Barreto is REVERSED.
Appeal 2012-011354
Application 11/752,945

11

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mp