Ex Parte Weisse

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2017

13050275 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/050,275 03/17/2011 Michael A. Weisse 57487US01; 2347
67097-1422PUS1
54549 7590 01/27/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BROCKMAN, ELDON T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2017 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 MICHAEL A. WEISSE
Appeal 2015-004434
Application 13/050,275
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LISA M. GUIJT, and GORDON D. KINDER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision2 rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated June 17, 2014 (“Final
Act.”).
Appeal 2015-004434
Application 13/050,275
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A two part airfoil comprising:
a suction side,
a pressure side,
a rib extending from one of said pressure side and said
suction side, said rib having a groove therein, said rib integral
with said one of said pressure side and said suction side, and
a riblet extending from the other of said pressure side and
said suction side, said riblet fitting within said groove, said riblet
integral with said other of said pressure side and said suction
side.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—4, 12—18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Helder (US 7,189,064 B2; iss. Mar. 13, 2007)
and Lockshaw (US 5,487,930; iss. Jan. 30, 1996).
II. Claims 5—7, 11, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Helder, Lockshaw, and Wiggs (US 5,269,058;
iss. Dec. 14, 1993).
III. Claims 8—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Helder, Lockshaw, Wiggs, and Palazzini (US 7,334,333
B2; Feb. 26, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Helder discloses a two-part airfoil with a riblet (rib 133) extending from, and
2
Appeal 2015-004434
Application 13/050,275
integral with, the suction side of the airfoil. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Helder,
Fig. 5). The Examiner further finds that although Helder does not disclose a
rib, as claimed, Lockshaw teaches a multi-part structure for use in an aircraft
components, including a tongue-and-groove configuration wherein a riblet
engages raised rib 38. Id. at 4 (citing Lockshaw, Fig. 4); Ans. 2 (citing
Lockshaw 5:3). The Examiner proposes modifying the pressure side of
Helder’s airfoil to have an integral, raised rib, as taught in Lockshaw,
because Lockshaw teaches that “the raised rib of the tongue and groove
configuration adds rigidity while reducing structural weight.” Final Act. 4—5
(citing Lockshaw 5:2—3). The Examiner makes similar findings with respect
to independent claim 14. Id. at 6—7.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, Appellant argues that
“neither Helder nor Lockshaw teaches the claimed rib.” Appeal Br. 3; see
also id. at 3^4; Reply Br. 1—2. However, Appellant fails to adequately
explain why the Examiner’s reliance on Lockshaw’s raised rib 38 as a rib is
an error. Lockshaw discloses that “element 10 further comprises a . . . lower
surface structure 20 comprising a generally planar surface portion 22 and
machined thereinto from a unitary metal mass an integral pattern of ribbing
24” (Lockshaw 4:19-22, Figs. 3, 4), and that “the interior surface 36 of the
surface structure 20 is suitably machined out to reduce material and thus
weight and at the same time add rigidity because of the resulting raised rib
38 which results” (Lockshaw 4:67—5:4, Figs. 3, 4). Raised rib 38 is depicted
in Figure 4 as having a groove therein, as required by claim 1. Id. at Fig. 4;
see also id. at 5:4—6 (describing raised rib 38 as forming part of “a tongue
3
Appeal 2015-004434
Application 13/050,275
and groove arrangement 41.”). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that Lockshaw discloses a rib that has a
groove and is integral with a structure, such as a side of an airfoil, as
claimed.
Appellant also argues that Lockshaw teaches away from the
Examiner’s proposed modification because Lockshaw’s structural element
has a third structure, in addition to a two-part airfoil. Appeal Br. 4—5; see
also Reply Br. 2. In support, Appellant submits that
Lockshaw explains that an object of its invention is to “provide
increased ease of manufacturing or otherwise fabricating the
component structures, by using a third structure separately
formed from the first and second structures so that the several
parts may be separately formed and no single part need to be as
complex as when only two structures are employed for
comparable structural elements.”
Id. at 5 (citing Lockshaw 1:50-56).
A reference teaches away from a claimed invention or a proposed
modification if “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
applicant.” In re Kubin, 561 L.3d 1351, 1357 (Led. Cir. 2009) (citing In re
Gurley, 27 L.3d 551, 553 (Led. Cir. 1994)). Here, the Examiner is relying
on Lockshaw for teaching a rib, and Appellant’s argument does not point out
why a person of ordinary skill, upon reading Lockshaw (including the
disclosure of Lockshaw’s three-piece design), would be led in a direction
divergent from placing Lockshaw’s integral, grooved, rib on one of the two
4
Appeal 2015-004434
Application 13/050,275
parts of Helder’s airfoil to provide a tongue-and-groove connection with
Helder’s rib 133 (or riblet), resulting in a more rigid design.
Appellant further argues that neither Helder nor Lockshaw teaches the
combination of “a rib ‘integral with’ one of a pressure and suction side wall,
and a ‘riblet’ integral with the other wall.” Appeal Br. 5. However,
Appellant’s argument fails to address the Examiner’s proposed combination,
which involves modifying Helder’s two-part airfoil, which already includes
a riblet integral with the suction side, to also include, on the pressure side of
Helder’s two-part airfoil, an integral, grooved, raised rib, as taught by
Lockshaw, to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Nonobviousness cannot
be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, Appellant concludes that the Examiner improperly relied on
hindsight. Appeal Br. 6. We disagree, in that the Examiner specifically
relies on the teaching in Lockshaw for motivation, as stated supra.
Moreover, the Examiner’s proposed modification is an improvement to
Helder’s two-part airfoil that adds the integral, grooved, rib, in the same way
as taught by Lockshaw, to lead to a predictable result, and the modification
is well within the skill of one having ordinary7 skill in this art. KSR Int 7 Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary7 skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
5
Appeal 2015-004434
Application 13/050,275
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 14. Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 2—4, 12, 13, 15—18, and 22, which depend from
claims 1 and 14, and therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-4, 12, 13, 15—18, and 22.
Rejections II and III
Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability
of claims 5—11 and 19—21, which depend from independent claims 1 and 14.
Appeal Br. 3—6; Reply Br. 1—3. Therefore, for the reasons stated supra with
respect to claims 1 and 14, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 5-11 and 19-21.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 is AFFIRMED.
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
6