Nicholas D. Aiello et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2020

13731147 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2020)

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.
13/731,147 12/31/2012 Nicholas D. Aiello 62759US01;
67097-2129PUS1
5426
54549 7590 06/16/2020
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
06/16/2020 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 NICHOLAS D. AIELLO and UYEN PHAN
Appeal 2018-007338
Application 13/731,147
Technology Center 3700
BEFORE STEFAN STAICOVICI, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–9, and 11–16. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Technologies Corporation. Update to Real Party in Interest filed Apr. 23,
2020.
Appeal 2018-007338
Application 13/731,147

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention is directed to a compressor rotor. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A compressor rotor comprising:
a rotor centered on an axis, and having a groove with
opposed side edges, and said groove receiving a plurality of
removable compressor blades, said groove having tangential
sides, and said blades having tangential side surfaces to be in
contact with said tangential sides of said groove, and at least one
slot cut into said side edges;
a first radial distance defined measured from a radially
outer edge of said side edge to a radially outer beginning point
of said tangential sides of said groove, and a second radial
distance defined radially between said radially outer beginning
point of said tangential sides to a radially inner end of said
tangential sides of said groove, and a ratio of said first radial
distance to said second radial distance being between 1.1 and 5.0;
and
said tangential sides of said groove are defined at an angle,
said angle being greater than 0 and less than 75 degrees measured
from a line parallel to a center axis of said rotor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lechthaler US 2,931,625 Apr. 5, 1960
Seda US 6,619,030 B1 Sept. 16, 2003
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1 and 3–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lechthaler.

2 As noted in the Examiner’s Answer, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
was withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2018-007338
Application 13/731,147

3
Claim 9 and 11–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Seda and Lechthaler.
OPINION
Appellant does not address any particular claim separately. See
Appeal Br. 2–3. For purposes of this decision, we consider Appellant to be
arguing claims 1 and 3–8 as a group and claims 9 and 11–16 as a group. We
select claims 1 and 9 as representative, and the remaining claims stand or
fall with those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 1 and 9 each require “a ratio of said first radial distance to said
second radial distance being between 1.1 and 5.0.” See Appeal Br. 4–5
(Claims App.). The Examiner’s rejections each rely on Lechthaler’s
drawings as teaching this limitation. Final Act. 4, 8. Appellant’s sole
dispute with the Examiner’s rejections is whether it is proper for the
Examiner to rely on Lechthaler’s drawings as teaching the recited ratio range
noted above. Appeal Br. 2–3.
Appellant does not dispute that the Lechthaler’s drawings, themselves,
depict a distance ratio within the recited range. Appellant contends,
however, that “[u]nless a patent clearly says its drawings are to scale, an
Examiner is not allowed to measure those drawings.” Appeal Br. 2.
Without discussing any particular portion of Lechthaler, Appellant alleges
that “there is nothing within Lechthaler that would lead one to believe the
drawing figures are to scale.” Id.; see also id. at 3 (“The disclosure gave no
indications that the drawings were drawn to scale.”). Appellant does not
provide an accurate characterization of Lechthaler’s teachings.
The Examiner’s annotated version of Lechthaler’s Figure 8 is
reproduced below.
Appeal 2018-007338
Application 13/731,147

4

The figure reproduced above is Figure 8 from Lechthaler, which “is a view
showing one of two locking blades . . . and showing the shape of the entry
slot” (Lechthaler 2:20–21), as well as the Examiner’s annotations to
illustrate how Lechthaler meets the recited ratio (Final Act. 5). The
Examiner finds that “a ratio of said first radial distance [(D1)] to said second
radial distance [(D2) is] between 1.1 and 5.0.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner
explains that “[d]rawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly
show the structure which is claimed.” Id. at 5 (citing In re Mraz, 455 F.2d
1069 (CCPA 1972)). The Examiner explains that precise measurements for
Lechthaler’s Figure 8 are not being relied on because “[i]mmediately upon
viewing Lechthaler’s figure it clearly and reasonably discloses, suggests and
teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art that D[1] is at least slightly larger
Appeal 2018-007338
Application 13/731,147

5
than D[2] and not so absurdly large as being 5 times the distance of D[2].”3
Ans. 5.
Patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale cannot define
the precise proportions of the elements and cannot be relied upon to show
particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.
Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). That does not mean, however, “that things patent drawings show
clearly are to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d at 1072 (emphasis
omitted). A drawing is evaluated on the basis of what it reasonably
discloses and suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian,
590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979). It has long been the case that
“[d]escription for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as
well as by words.” In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953 (CCPA 1931).
In Mraz, for example, the claims at issue required that mating portions
of roll members (for removing edge burrs from thin metal strips) define a
strip-receiving peripheral groove with inwardly converging inclined surfaces
at an angle, with respect to a plane perpendicular to the axis of the roll
member, “not exceeding 15°.” Mraz, 455 F.2d at 1070. The principal
reference (Wilson) disclosed “edge rolls” that were provided for removing
the burrs from side edges of thin metal strips. Id.

3 The Examiner appears to have mistakenly reversed the reference to
dimensions D1 and D2, which we corrected as noted.
Appeal 2018-007338
Application 13/731,147

6
Figure 3 of Wilson, as depicted in Mraz, is reproduced below.

Figure 3 from Mraz depicts “edge rolls” 10 and thin metal strip 7. Id. at
1071. Without reference to expert testimony, the Court found that “[t]he
half-angle of the V-shaped groove 10a measures about 6° on this drawing,”
although noting that “the specification says nothing about the angle.” Id.
The Court found that the Wilson reference “focuses on the edge rolls,
showing them with great particularity and showing the grooves thereon to
have an angularity well within the range recited in appellant’s claims.” Id. at
1072. In other words, although patent drawings are not working drawings,
that does not mean that “things patent drawings show clearly are to be
disregarded.” Id.
Based on the facts of this particular case, the Examiner has the better
position in view of Lechthaler’s teachings. Annotated versions of
Lechthaler’s Figures 2 and 6 are reproduced below.
Appeal 2018-007338
Application 13/731,147

7

The annotated version of Lechthaler’s Figure 2 depicts “a plan view of a
portion of the rotor” (Lechthaler 2:9), and the annotated version of
Lechthaler’s Figure 6 depicts “a view taken along the line 6—6 of Fig. 2
with the portion of the blade holding member between the line 6—6 and the
blade holding slot being cut away and showing only two adjacent blades”
(id. 2:14–17). Lechthaler’s Figure 8, relied on by the Examiner and
reproduced above, is similar to the view taken along the line 4—4 of Figure
2.
When distinguishing its invention from the prior art, Appellant
explains that “[i]n the prior art a ratio of d1 to d2 may have been
approximately 0.9” (i.e., d1 being less than d2). Spec. ¶ 27. There should
be no real dispute that Lechthaler does not depict the prior art ratio because
Lechthaler clearly teaches its D1 being greater than D2. Further, Lechthaler
provides sufficient reason to believe its drawings are at least generally a
scale representation of the relevant features of the rotor assembly illustrated.
Lechthaler explains, for example, that “[t]he circumferential width b of root
14 (see Figs. 2 and 6) is about 50% of the circumferential width of end wall
Appeal 2018-007338
Application 13/731,147

8
20 of the platforms.” Lechthaler 2:55–57. That ratio corresponds to what is
depicted between the inner red box and the outer red box in our annotated
Figure 2 (also shown illustrated in our annotated Figure 6 as the circled
dimension b and the portion highlighted in blue). This discussion is
significant because Lechthaler’s Figure 8 is also a section view taken from
Figure 2, but taken perpendicular to the section taken for Figure 6. Like the
features in the Wilson reference discussed in Mraz, Lechthaler focuses on
rotor roots 14, which are received in slots 10, showing them with great
particularity and including a discussion of their proportions, as well as
showing the features of slots 10 being well within the range of groove
distance ratios recited in Appellant’s claims.
For at least these reasons, Appellant’s general allegation that the
Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1 and 9 by relying on Lechthaler’s
drawings is not persuasive.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8 102(b) Lechthaler 1, 3–8
9, 11–16 103(a) Seda, Lechthaler 9, 11–16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9, 11–16

Appeal 2018-007338
Application 13/731,147

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED