Ex Parte Worth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

14079688 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
14/079,688 11/14/2013 Edwin M. Worth 71150US03; 4435
67097-2399PUS1
54549 7590 12/04/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
PETERS, BRIAN O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 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 EDWIN M. WORTH, THOMAS G. TILLMAN,
and FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ1
Appeal 2016-008225
Application 14/079,688
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1—8, 10-20, and 22—30. See Appeal Br. 3—8. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 United Technologies Corporation, the Appellant, is identified as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-008225
Application 14/079,688
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 15, 23, and 29 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A fan blade comprising:
a main body having an airfoil extending between a leading edge
and a trailing edge and the fan blade having at least one of:
(a) a channel closed by a cover, and
(b) an end cap covering the leading edge; and
the at least one of the cover and the end cap having a pair of
opposed ends, and a step and a step dimension defined by at least one
of a suction wall and a pressure wall of the airfoil, to an outer surface
of said one of the cover and the end cap at one of said opposed ends,
and said step dimension being less than or equal to 0.010 inch (0.0254
centimeter) in dimension.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6—8, 11—14, 23—25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Viens (US 2010/0266415 Al, pub.
Oct. 21, 2010) and Schilling (US 2009/0053067 Al, pub. Feb. 26, 2009).
Claims 3, 5, 26, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Viens, Schilling, and Dorman (US 5,209,644, iss. May 11,
1993).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Viens, Schilling, and Stargardter (US 4,076,455, iss. Feb. 28, 1978).
Claims 15—17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sheridan (US 2009/0090096 Al, pub. Apr. 9, 2009),
Viens, and Schilling.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sheridan, Viens, Schilling, and Dorman.
2
Appeal 2016-008225
Application 14/079,688
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sheridan, Viens, Schilling, and Stargardter.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6—8, 11—14, 23—25, 28, and 29
Rejected over Viens and Schilling
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 6—8, 11—14, 23—25, 28, and 29 as a
group. Appeal Br. 3^4. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2,
4, 6—8, 11—14, 23—25, 28, and 29 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Viens teaches a fan blade with channels 34
closed by covers 16A, 16B with a step dimension less than or equal to 0.010
inches, as recited in claim 1, but lacks an end cap covering the leading edge.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Schilling teaches end cap 80 covering
leading edge 74 of a blade (Fig. 3) wherein end cap 80 has a pair of opposed
ends and a step dimension (Fig. 4) between outer surface of end cap 80 and
suction wall 72 and pressure wall 70 of the airfoil less than or equal to 0.010
inches. Id. at 6. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
to add such a protective cover to the leading edge of Viens’ blade with a step
dimension of less than 0.010 inches to protect the leading edge and ensure a
smooth, turbulence-free transition as taught by Schilling. Id. (citing
Schilling || 20, 24).
The Examiner also finds that the drawings of Viens (e.g., Figs. 3, 9)
show covers 16A, 16B to be co-planar with pressure and suction walls 30,
32, and Figure 4 of Schilling shows end cap step 80 to be flush with pressure
wall 70 and suction wall 72 so the step dimension of both elements is zero,
which is less than 0.010 inches, as claimed. Ans. 19—21; Final Act. 3—4.
3
Appeal 2016-008225
Application 14/079,688
The Examiner’s findings that Viens and Schilling render obvious a
cover and end cap with a step dimension that is “less than or equal to 0.010
inch” as recited in claim 1 is supported by a preponderance of evidence. The
drawings of Viens and Schilling show the outer surfaces of cover 16A, 16B
and end cap 80 as coplanar with suction and pressure walls 30, 32/70,72 of
the fan blades so the step therebetween is essentially zero inches, which is
“less than or equal to 0.010 inch” as claimed. Ans. 19—21; Final Act. 3^4.
It is well-settled that drawings in a utility patent can be cited against
claims of a utility patent application even though the features shown in the
drawings are unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference
patent. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979). Appellants does
not dispute that the drawings show the outer surfaces of covers and end caps
coplanar with pressure walls of a fan blade. See Appeal Br. 3^4; Reply Br.
2. Appellants’ argument that Viens does not teach a dimension of step 50 in
Figure 9 (Appeal Br. 3^4; Reply Br. 2) is not persuasive because step 50
does not measure a dimension between an outer surface of cover 16A, 16B
and an outer surface of suction wall 30 or pressure wall 32, as claimed.
Appellants disclose step dimensions di, &2, d3 extend between outer surface
210 of airfoil 18, 128 (not an inner surface as Viens discloses for step 50 in
Figs. 3—6 and 9) and an outer surface of cover 132 or end 137 of cap 37.
See Spec. H 63—65, Figs. 2, 3A, 3BA, 3BB.
The Examiner’s interpretation of the drawings also is consistent with
the specification of both references. Viens discloses that the covers (panels
16) “have a thickness 58 adjacent the edge that is substantially equal to the
height 50 of the shelf’ as shown in Figures 2—6. Viens 119. The coplanar
surfaces shown in those drawings disclose a step dimension of zero inches.
4
Appeal 2016-008225
Application 14/079,688
Similarly, Schilling discloses that “[t]he outer surface of the leading
edge strip 80 is smooth and is intended to provide essentially turbulence-free
transition from the adjacent vane surface.” Schilling 124. The drawings of
Schilling are consistent with this disclosure. They illustrate the outer surface
of strip 80 as coplanar with the outer surfaces of pressure and suction sides
70, 72 (i.e., with zero step) to provide a turbulence-free transition. Id. Fig. 4.
Moreover, these teachings indicate the desirability of making the outer
surfaces of covers and end caps co-planar with outer surfaces of the suction
and pressure surfaces of the blade airfoils. These teachings would motivate
a skilled artisan to minimize the step dimension between the outer surfaces
of these elements to essentially zero inches within applicable manufacturing
tolerances to make their outer surfaces co-planar to reduce turbulence
therebetween as the references themselves teach. Thus, Viens and Schilling
also support a determination that covers and end caps with step dimensions
in the claimed range would have been obvious as an optimization of a result
effective variable to reduce the step as close to 0.000 inches as possible to
minimize turbulence between the outer surfaces of these elements.
We also determine that the Examiner’s reason for combining features
of Viens and Schilling is supported by a rational underpinning of Schilling’s
teaching to add a protective cover to protect the leading edge from erosion.
Final Act. 6 (citing Schilling || 20, 24). We are not persuaded that adding
an end cap to Viens’ blade would destroy Viens’ goal of reducing the weight
of the fan blades as Appellants argue. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. It is not
clear that adding Schilling’s cover 80 would increase the weight of the blade
when Schilling replaces part of fan blade 52 with cover 80 by embedding
cover 80 in the fan blade. Schilling || 22—24, Fig. 4.
5
Appeal 2016-008225
Application 14/079,688
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ attorney argument that end cap
80 would increase the weight of stator vane 52 in view of the weight of the
composite material that was removed and replaced by end cap 80 and bond
layer 82. Schilling teaches that vane 52 is formed of a polymeric composite
and end cap (leading edge protective strip 80) is made of titanium. Id. 122.
Moreover, even if there was evidence to indicate that the modification
would increase the weight of Viens’ blade, as Appellant argues, we are not
persuaded that this evidence necessarily teaches away from or undermines
the Examiner’s rationale for the combination. It is well-settled that the mere
disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away and just because better
alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination
is inapt for obviousness purposed. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333—34
(Fed. Cir. 2012) cited with approval in Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs.,
Inc., No. 2016-2169, 2017 WF 4929904, at *7 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Viens teaches that unitary hollow metallic airfoils and metallic edge
covers “typically result in a weight reduction over a traditional titanium solid
fan blade, but dramatically increase the cost of the fan blade.” Viens 14.
The Examiner reasons that any increase in weight and cost that is not cost-
prohibitive would reduce erosion of the leading edge of the blade to lengthen
the blade’s service life, decrease engine downtime, and decrease engine
maintenance cost, which are offsetting cost advantages that support the
modification, particularly where Viens already teaches the use of cavities 34
to reduce the blade weight. Ans. 22. Appellant’s singular focus on the
alleged weight gain of Schilling’s end cover 80 does not address these other
considerations (Reply Br. 2) and therefore does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning, which is supported by a rational underpinning.
6
Appeal 2016-008225
Application 14/079,688
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 4, 6—8, 11—14,
23—25, 28, and 29, which accordingly fall with claim 1.
Claims 3, 5, 26, 27, and 30
Rejected Over Viens, Schilling, and Dorman
Appellants argue that claims 3, 5, 26, 27, and 30 are allowable due to
their dependency from claims 1, 23, and 29, and Dorman does not cure the
deficiencies of Viens and Schilling. Appeal Br. 4. Because we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 23, and 29, this argument is not persuasive, and we
also sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5, 26, 27, and 30.
Claim 10
Rejected Over Viens, Schilling, and Stargardter
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Stargardter does not
overcome the deficiencies of Viens and Schilling as to claim 1 from which
claim 10 depends. Appeal Br. 5. Because we sustain the rejection of claim
1, this argument is not persuasive, and we sustain the rejection of claim 10.
Claims 15—17, 19, and 20
Rejected Over Sheridan, Viens, and Schilling
The Examiner finds that Sheridan discloses a gas turbine engine as
recited in independent claim 15 but lacks the claimed channel closed by a
cover and end cap covering the leading edge with at least one of the cover
and end cap having a pair of opposed ends and a step dimension to chord
length ratio less than or equal to 0.001. Final Act. 16. The Examiner relies
on Viens to teach a fan blade with a channel 34 closed by cover 16A, 16B
with a step dimension (Fig. 9) to suction wall 32 or pressure wall 30 and
chord length. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to
substitute one type of fan blade for another to achieve predictable results of
operating a gas turbine engine with fan blades. Id. at 16—17.
7
Appeal 2016-008225
Application 14/079,688
The Examiner relies on Schilling to teach a fan blade with end cap 80
covering leading edge 74 and having a step dimension with suction wall 72
and pressure wall 70. Id. at 18 (citing Fig. 4). The Examiner determines it
would have been obvious to modify Viens’ leading edge with a protective
cover, as taught by Schilling, to protectively cover the leading edge of the
blade as Schilling teaches is advantageous to do. Id. (citing Schilling 120).
The Examiner also reasons that because the step dimension of the step
of Viens’ cover 16A, 16B and Schilling’s end cap 80 is zero, as discussed in
the rejection of independent claims 1, 23, and 29, the ratio of step dimension
to chord length is zero, which is a ratio less than 0.001 as claimed. Ans. 23;
Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner also reasons that this step would have been
obvious as a design choice because it merely ensures a smooth transition
between the surfaces of the pressure/suction walls and the cover or end cap
to within acceptable tolerance, which is a design choice. Id. at 17; Ans. 23.
The Examiner’s findings regarding the disclosure of the claimed ratio
of step dimension to chord length of less than or equal to 0.001 in Viens and
Schilling is supported by a preponderance of evidence for the same reasons
discussed above for the rejection of claim 1. The references teach a step
dimension of 0.000 inches, which yields a ratio to the chord length of zero,
which is less than or equal to 0.001. Appellants’ arguments that the claimed
ratio is not recognized as a result effective variable (Appeal Br. 5—8; Reply
Br. 3—4) does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Viens and
Schilling to teach a step dimension of zero inches and chord ratio of 0.000,
which is within the ratio range of claim 15. Moreover, Viens and Schilling
teach a step dimension as a result effective variable that is to be minimized
in order to reduce turbulence as discussed above for the rejection of claim 1.
8
Appeal 2016-008225
Application 14/079,688
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 15 with dependent claims 16,
17, 19, and 20 falling with claim 15 because Appellants do not argue these
claims separately. See Appeal Br. 5—8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 18 and 22
Rejected Over Sheridan, Viens, Schilling, and Dorman/Stargardter
The Examiner relies on Dorman and Stargardter to teach features of
claims 18 and 22, respectively. Final Act. 20-21. Appellants’ arguments
that Dorman and Stargardter do not cure deficiencies of Viens and Schilling
as to claim 15 from which these claims depend (see Appeal Br. 4—5) is not
persuasive in view of our affirmance of the rejection of claim 15. Therefore,
there are no deficiencies for Dorman and Stargardter to cure, and we thus
sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 22.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—8, 10-20, and 22—30.
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
9