Ex Parte Wojciechowski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 201713454859 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/454,859 04/24/2012 Marek Wojciechowski 252212-1 1001 80944 7590 12/01/2017 Hoffman Warniok T T .P EXAMINER 540 Broadway 4th Floor CHEN, KUANGYUE Albany, NY 12207 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2017 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): ptocommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAREK WOJCIECHOWSKI, JOHN FRANCIS NOLAN, and JOHN MATTHEW SASSATELLI Appeal 2016-005565 Application 13/454,8591 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Marek Wojciechowski et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22. Final Office Action (June 30, 2015) [hereinafter “Final Act.”]. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify General Electric as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1 (October 27, 2015) [hereinafter “Appeal Br.”]. Appeal 2016-005565 Application 13/454,859 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ claimed subject matter “relates to a portable induction- based temper system for components of a turbine, such as a steam turbine.” Specification 11 (filed April 24, 2012) [hereinafter “Spec.”]. Claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An induction temper system for a turbine, the system comprising: a pliable induction member having an adjustable length that is modifiable from an original length to an application length that coincides with a length of a component of the turbine that is to undergo induction tempering, the application length of the induction member being further modifiable to coincide with other components of the turbine with differing lengths; a control system operably connected to the induction member; and a temperature sensor operably connected with the control system, wherein the control system is configured to control an electrical current supplied to the induction member in response to a temperature indicator about the component of the turbine obtained from the temperature sensor. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). EVIDENCE The Examiner’s decision relies upon the following evidence: Taylor Iceland Bechtold, Jr. Wiezbowski Eberhardt US 4,119,825 US 5,055,648 US 5,736,714 US 2001/0004983 A1 US 6,689,995 B2 Oct. 10, 1978 Oct. 8, 1991 Apr. 7, 1998 June 28, 2001 Feb. 10, 2004 2 Appeal 2016-005565 Application 13/454,859 Brisson Matlack Ushiro US 6,811,375 B2 US 7,641,739 B2 US 7,684,716 B2 Nov. 2, 2004 Jan. 5, 2010 Mar. 23,2010 REJECTIONS The Final Office Action includes the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, and Iceland. 2. Claims 2, 3, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, Iceland, and Matlack. 3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, Iceland, and Bechtold, Jr. 4. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, Iceland, and Wiezbowski. 5. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, Iceland, and Ushiro. 6. Claims 12 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, Iceland, and Brisson. 7. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, Iceland, Matlack, and Wiezbowski. 8. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, Iceland, Matlack, and Ushiro. 9. Claims 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, Iceland, Matlack, and Brisson. 3 Appeal 2016-005565 Application 13/454,859 ANALYSIS First Ground of Rejection: Obviousness over Eberhardt, Taylor, and Iceland The Examiner finds that Eberhardt discloses an induction member for a turbine blade, but does not disclose that the induction member is pliable having an adjustable length that is modifiable as called for in independent claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Taylor discloses a pliable induction member 22 having an adjustable application length. Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Eberhardt’s system in view of Taylor to provide a pliable induction member for “advantageously applying local heating at successive points along the length of a workpiece which is of varying cross-section and improving the operation of the induction temper system.” Id. at 5. Appellants contend that the first ground of rejection should not be sustained because “Eberhardt in view of Taylor and Iceland fails to teach or suggest an induction temper system for a turbine that includes a pliable induction member having an adjustable application length.” Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellants contend that “as can be seen in FIG. 2 of Taylor, while the coil 22 of Taylor may be flexible, the application length of the coil is always constant.” Id. at 6. Taylor is directed to an induction heating apparatus for applying local heating at successive points along the length of a workpiece of varying cross-section so as to maintain the induction coil at a substantially constant distance around the periphery of the workpiece as the workpiece is being drawn. Taylor, col. 1,11. 5-7, 12-14. In particular, as workpiece 10 is being drawn, induction coil 22 is moved downwards via carriage 26 to heat the 4 Appeal 2016-005565 Application 13/454,859 workpiece and to maintain heated zone 40 in the correct place, while upper carriage 20 of the machine moves upward to elongate the workpiece. Id. at col. 2,11. 30-34, Fig. 1. Further, as the shape of the blade changes along its length, cam followers 32, 34 are moved transversely by cam surfaces 36 to exert pressure on a biasing coil at the points of attachment of the six lugs 28 to vary the shape of the coil to maintain a substantially constant distance between the coil 22 and the surface of the workpiece 10. Id. at col. 2,11. 35- 40, Figs. 1, 2. Based on this description, we understand that in operation, carriage 26 moves up and down to relocate induction coil 22 along the workpiece as the workpiece lengthens during drawing; however, the application length of induction coil 22 along the workpiece (i.e., heating zone 40) remains constant. Also, in operation, cam followers 32, 34 and cam 36 interact to maintain a constant distance between induction coil 22 and the workpiece as the shape of the blade changes during the drawing process. Thus, lugs 28 vary the shape of induction coil 22 about the perimeter of the workpiece, but the application length of induction coil 22 around the perimeter of the workpiece remains constant. For these reasons, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings that Taylor discloses an induction member that is modifiable from an original length to an application length, and further modifiable to a different application length, are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we do not sustain the first ground of rejection of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 7, 8, 10, and 11, as unpatentable over Eberhardt, Taylor, and Iceland. 5 Appeal 2016-005565 Application 13/454,859 Second through Ninth Grounds of Rejection The rejections of independent claims 13 and 20 rely on the same deficient finding with respect to Taylor as applied to the rejection of independent claim 1. Final Act. 14, 21. Further, the additional references relied upon in the second through ninth grounds of rejection do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s finding with respect to Taylor. For these reasons, we do not sustain the second through ninth grounds of rejection of claims 2-5, 9, 12-14, and 16-22. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation