Ex Parte Virkler

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2018

13713257 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/713,257 12/13/2012 Scott D. Virkler
54549 7590 06/04/2018
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.
57719US02;
67097-2224PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
8706
EXAMINER
DAVIS, JASON GREGORY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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 SCOTT D. VIRKLER
Appeal2017-006700
Application 13/713,257
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-006700
Application 13/713,257
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1---6, 8-11, and 13-24, the only claims currently pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claims are directed generally to a high pressure rotor disk
used in the turbine section of a gas turbine engine. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a compressor section including a high pressure compressor
and a low pressure compressor;
a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor
section;
a turbine section in fluid communication with the
combustor, wherein the turbine section includes a high pressure
turbine driving the high pressure compressor and a low pressure
turbine driving the low pressure compressor, wherein at least one
of the high pressure turbine and the high pressure compressor
includes a disk having a bore diameter (D) related to a bore width
(W) according to a ratio (D/W) between 1.25 and 1.65.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Adams US 2012/0291449 Al Nov. 22, 2012
2
Appeal2017-006700
Application 13/713,257
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Adams. Final Action 3.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Adams teaches all of the limitations of claim
1, but fails to specifically disclose the claimed ratio of the bore diameter to
bore width. Final Action 4-5. The Examiner cites "engineering expedient"
as the basis for changing various parameters and also relies on paragraph 45
of Adams, which merely states that all of the "parameters can be varied
simultaneously to change the weight of the turbine, its efficiency, its
manufacturing cost, the degree of difficulty in packaging the low pressure
turbine section in the core cowling and its durability." Id. at 5-6. Nothing
in this paragraph of Adams, however, discloses any acknowledgement of the
claimed ratio or how it specifically would affect the performance of the
turbine. The Examiner then concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disk of Adams by changing
the bore diameter, bore width, live rim diameter, and outer diameter" so as
to meet the claims. Id. at 5.
In In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955), the court set forth the
rule that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process
is normally obvious. See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276 (CCPA
1980). Exceptions to this general rule include where the parameter optimized
was not recognized in the art to be a result effective variable and where the
results of optimizing a variable, which was known to be result effective,
3
Appeal2017-006700
Application 13/713,257
were unexpectedly good. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,621 (CCPA 1977),
and In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 1276 (CCPA 1974).
Before concluding that the claimed ratio is the product of routine
optimization, it must be established that the functional relationship between
bore diameter and bore width was known in the art and that these two
variables would have been obvious variables to attempt to optimize in
relation to each other. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620. Adams does
not provide any teaching of that relationship and the Examiner has not cited
any other record evidence showing that the claimed ratio was known to be a
result effective variable. As such, the Examiner failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that one having ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to try adjusting either or both of bore width and bore
diameter to achieve the claimed ratio.
The Examiner further asserts that Appellant has failed to show that the
claimed ratio has any criticality. Ans. 4. While this may be true, such a
rebuttal is only necessary when the Examiner has fulfilled the duty of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, thus shifting the burden of
rebuttal to the Appellant. Because we conclude that the Examiner failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, we need not address the
sufficiency of any rebuttal thereto. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection over Adams.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1---6, 8-11, and 13-24.
REVERSED
4