Ex Parte Wang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 13, 2005

09735503 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 13, 2005)

1 Application for patent filed December 14, 2000.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN ZHIQIANG WANG
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application 09/735,5031
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, KRATZ, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 6
through 8, which are all the claims pending in the above-
identified application.
Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application No. 09/735,503
2 According to the appellant (Brief, page 4), “[c]laims 2-4 stand
or fall together with claim 1 and claims 7 and 8 stand or fall
together with claim 6.” Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we
select claims 1 and 6 and decide the propriety of the examiner’s
Section 102(b)rejection set forth in the Answer based on these claims
consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003) and 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)
(vii)(2004).
-2-
APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal is directed to gas turbine
bucket (blade) construction, wherein a natural frequency of the
turbine bucket (blade) is “tuned” using secondary orientation.
See the specification, pages 1 and 4. The selection of the
secondary orientation (placement of a crystal seed along a
desired direction) “effect[s] a desired percentage change in
turbine bucket natural frequencies.” See the specification,
page 4. This percentage change, in turn, improves fatigue
resistance of the turbine bucket (blade). See the specification,
page 1, lines 10-19 and page 3, lines 14-15. Details of the
appealed subject matter are recited in representative claims 1
and 62, which are reproduced below:
1. A method of manufacturing a turbine bucket comprising:
(a) investment casting the turbine bucket with a single
crystal alloy; and
(b) tuning a natural frequency of the turbine bucket
without modifying physical features of the turbine
bucket, wherein step (b)is practiced by, prior to step
(a), placing a crystal seed along a desired direction
Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application No. 09/735,503
-3-
according to an orientation including all angles
between 00-900 relative to an engine axial direction to
thereby effect a desired percentage change in the
natural frequency of the turbine bucket.
6. A method of tuning turbine bucket natural
frequency comprising:
(a) placing a crystal seed along a desired orientation
including all angles between 00-900 relative to an
engine axial direction; and
(b) investment casting the turbine bucket with a single
crystal alloy, wherein the desired orientation is
selected to tune torsional frequencies without
affecting flexure frequencies and to effect a desired
percentage change in the turbine bucket natural
frequency.
PRIOR ART
The sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Gemma et al. (Gemma) 4,605,452 Aug. 12, 1986
REJECTION
Claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 8 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of Gemma.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and the appellant in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
the examiner’s Section 102 rejection is well founded.
Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application No. 09/735,503
-4-
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s Section 102(b)
rejection for those factual findings set forth in the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
Under Section 102, anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The law of anticipation, however, does not require that the prior
art reference teach the appellants’ purpose disclosed in the
specification, but only that the claims on appeal "read on"
something disclosed in the prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Here, there is no dispute that Gemma discloses the
manufacturing of a turbine blade (bucket) comprising the claimed
sequence of “investment casting the turbine blade with a single
crystal having controlled secondary crystallographic orientation
... ” Compare the Answer, page 3, with the Brief and the Reply
Brief in their entirety and see also Gemma, the abstract,
Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application No. 09/735,503
-5-
together with Gemma, column 14, line 45 to column 15, line 18.
Nor is there any dispute that:
The single crystal [of Gemma] is placed in a desired
orientation including all angles from 0 to 90 degrees
(col. 13, lines 1-6) to provide a better fatigue
resistance (col. 3, lines 10-50). The orientation of
the seed is preferred between zero and twenty degrees
(col. 3, lines 39-41, col. 12, lines 52-65). The
secondary orientation would not affect the turbine
blade’s weight, the turbine blade’s shape, or the
flexure mode of the turbine blade, since the flexure
frequencies is [sic, are] insensitive to the secondary
orientation as acknowledged ... by [the] applicant
(page 3, lines 24-26 of [the] applicant’s specifica-
tion). (Emphasis in original)
Although the examiner acknowledges that Gemma is silent with
respect to the tuning of a natural frequency of the turbine blade
(bucket), the examiner takes the position that such tuning “is
inherent that every time when Gemma ... arrange[s] the crystal
seed to a different orientation, at any angle, the natural
frequency has been tuned to a different value.” See the Answer,
page 3. In other words, the examiner finds that Gemma, by virtue
of placing its single crystal seed in an orientation (direction)
useful for improving fatigue resistance, necessarily or
inherently obtains the corresponding desired percentage change in
the natural frequency of the turbine blade (bucket).
The appellant argues (Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2) that:
Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application No. 09/735,503
-6-
In paragraph (10) of the Examiner’s Answer, the
Examiner maintains that “it is inherent that every time
when Gemma et al. arrange the crystal seed to a
different orientation, at any angle, the natural
frequency has been tuned to a different value.”
Although Appellant may not necessarily disagree with
this statement, Appellant respectfully submits that
even assuming its accuracy, the claimed invention does
not result. As noted previously, in the Gemma patent,
the method to optimize fatigue is to set the secondary
orientation such that the orientation is tangent to the
blade surface in the critical crack prone regions just
behind the leading edge of the airfoil at about 40-80%
of the airfoil span. The effect of the crystal
orientation on natural frequency is irrelevant to the
Gemma method, resulting in some random, non-specific
value. The claimed invention, in contrast, with
reference to claim 1 for example, defines a step of
tuning a natural frequency of the turbine bucket . . .
by placing a crystal seed along a desired direction
. . . to thereby effect a desired percentage change in
the natural frequency of the turbine bucket. Thus, by
this invention, a specific natural frequency percentage
change can be effected by placing the crystal seed
along a specific direction. This direction is known and
the result is known and not merely a random consequence
of actions toward another goal as in the Gemma method.
(Underlining emphasis in original. Bold emphasis added)
We are not persuaded by the appellant’s argument.
As found by the examiner (Answer, page 3), Gemma, like the
appellant, teaches orienting the single crystal seed to a
configuration (direction) useful for improving fatigue resistance
of the turbine blade. Also, there is no dispute that this
orientation of the single crystal seed necessarily or inherently
tunes a natural frequency of the turbine blade, i.e., effects a
Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application No. 09/735,503
-7-
percentage change in the natural frequency of the turbine blade.
See the Reply Brief, page 1, together with claim 1 on appeal
which recites “placing a crystal seed along a desired direction
according to an orientation...thereby effect a desired percentage
change in the natural frequency of the turbine bucket”. Although
Gemma does not recognize the importance of obtaining a so-called
“desired percentage change” in the natural frequency of the
turbine blade, it, by virtue of placing the single crystal seed
in a direction desirable for improving fatigue resistance of a
turbine blade, necessarily or inherently causes a corresponding
percentage change in a natural frequency of the turbine blade,
which is also desirable for improving fatigue resistance of the
turbine blade. The natural frequency percentage change
necessarily or inherently obtained in Gemma is not precluded by
the claimed so-called “desired percentage change” in a natural
frequency of the turbine blade, which is no more than a function
of the desired direction of the crystal seed.
CONCLUSION
In view of the factual findings set forth in the Answer and
above, we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie
case of anticipation which has not been sufficiently rebutted by

Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application No. 09/735,503
-8-
by the appellant. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting the claims on appeal under Section 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PETER F. KRATZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CKP:vsh
Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application No. 09/735,503
-9-
NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
1100 NORTH GLEBE ROAD
8TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22201