Porter, Steven D. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 12, 2019

14787490 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2019)

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.
14/787,490 10/28/2015 Steven D. Porter 71466US02;
67097-2529US1
4215
54549 7590 09/12/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
RIBADENEYRA, THEODORE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2019 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 STEVEN D. PORTER and JOHN T. OLS
____________

Appeal 2019-001997
Application 14/787,490
Technology Center 3700
_______________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4–10, 13–19, and 23–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Durocher (US 2011/0081239 A1; published Apr. 7, 2011)

1 United Technologies Corporation (“Appellant”), the applicant as provided
for under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, is also identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001997
Application 14/787,490

2
and Wood (US 6,312,219 B1; issued Nov. 6, 2001).2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A turbine vane comprising:
an airfoil extending between an inner platform and
an outer platform, said airfoil being hollow and a hollow
within said airfoil extending between an inner leading
edge to an inner trailing edge;
an inner radius defined at said inner trailing edge in
a circumferential direction measured between walls which
extend from said inner leading edge to said inner trailing
edge, and said inner radius varying along a radial length
defined between said inner and outer platforms; and
wherein said inner radius is greater in at least one of
said inner and said outer platforms than at smaller radius
locations disposed in a region defined radially between
said inner and outer platforms; and
wherein said inner radius is greater at both said
inner and outer platforms than it is at said smaller radius
locations.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Durocher
discloses the airfoil as claimed, including an inner radius defined at an inner

2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated April 5, 2018, as
supplemented by the Advisory Action July 3, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001997
Application 14/787,490

3
trailing edge, which varies along a radial length defined between the inner
and outer platforms. Final Act. 3 (citing Durocher, Fig. 2). The Examiner
determines that Durocher does not disclose that the variable inner radius is
greater in at least one of the inner and outer platforms than at smaller radius
locations disposed in a region defined radially between the inner and outer
platforms, as claimed, and the Examiner relies on Wood for teaching that an
inner radius may be greater in at least one of the inner and outer platforms
than at smaller radius locations defined therebetween. Id. at 3–4 (citing
Wood 4:19–24). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to
modify the stator vanes of Durocher to include the blade profile of Wood
because the profile of Wood provides improved performance by decreasing
wetted surface area and thereby decreasing drag.” Id. at 5 (citing Wood
4:19–24).
Appellant does not dispute that Durocher discloses a variable inner
radius defined at an inner trailing edge, as claimed, or that modifying the
waist3 of a vane according to the teaching of Wood would result in
Durocher’s variable inner radius being greater in at least one of the inner and
outer platforms than at small radius location disposed in a region defined
radially between the inner and outer platforms, as claimed, as long as the
waist relative to the trailing edge is subject to such a modification.
However, Appellant argues that Wood only discloses narrowing the chord
solely from the leading edge, and expressly not from the trailing edge, such
that one skilled in the art would not have been led to modify Durocher’s

3 “Waist” is defined in Wood as “a waist 36 of minimum chord length
which is preferably disposed centrally between the root 28 and the tip 30
along the longitudinal or radial span of the vane.” Wood 3:58–41.
Appeal 2019-001997
Application 14/787,490

4
variable inner radius of the inner trailing edge, and further, not for the
purpose taught by Wood: such a variable radius on the inner leading edge
“reduces ‘wetted surface area, and therefore aerodynamic drag.’” Appeal
Br. 2–3 (quoting Wood 4:19–24). Appellant argues that “[t]hese
[advantages] would appear to be functions that are measured at a leading
edge of a vane, where the products of combustion would initially contact the
vane,” and that “[t]hese would not appear to have any benefit at a trailing
edge.” Id. at 3. Appellant further argues that “Wood would only suggest
modifying a leading edge, and not the trailing edge.” Id.; see also Reply Br.
1 (arguing that the Examiner erred by “measur[ing] [a leading edge]
structure on Wood” and proposing to move the same structure (or shape) “to
the trailing edge of Durocher”).
The Examiner responds that “the modification of the entire profile,”
as proposed by the Examiner, “provide[s] a benefit to the vane structure, and
thereby [the Examiner’s proposed modification has] proper supporting
rationale.” Ans. 4.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Wood discloses, with
reference to Figure 1, that
stator vane 18 preferably narrows in chord solely from the
leading edge 24 toward the trailing edge 26, with the trailing
edge remaining straight in profile. In the preferred embodiment,
the trailing edge 26 is configured to extend solely radially in axial
elevation or project without inclination with the leading edge. In
this way, the waist 36 is defined solely by the tapered or
scalloped leading edge 24, with the trailing edge being straight
radially and without scallop.
Wood 4:10–18 (emphasis added). Wood also discloses that
Appeal 2019-001997
Application 14/787,490

5
[b]y introducing the narrow waist 36 centrally in the vane by
reducing chord length from both endwalls [of the leading edge],
improved 3D performance of the stator stage may be effected.
The narrow midspan or central portion of the vane has a
corresponding direction in wetted surface area, and therefore
aerodynamic drag is corresponding reduced.
Id. at 4:19–24. In other words, Wood teaches narrowing the chord to create
a scalloped edge (i.e., an edge with an inner radius that varies as claimed)
solely at the inner leading edge, and Wood specifically guides one skilled in
the art not to perform such narrowing of the chord at the inner trailing edge
(as required by claim 1) for the purpose of improving performance and
reducing aerodynamic drag—the motivation relied on by the Examiner
supra. Thus, Wood expressly discourages the Examiner’s proposed
modification of Durocher. Cf. Spec. ¶ 67 (disclosing that varying the inner
radius at the inner trailing edge, as claimed, “eliminate[s] material, and thus
provide[s] a weight savings”), Fig. 2C (described as “show[ing] a difference
in the amount of material between the Figure 2B radius 190 and the Figure
2A radius 89” (Spec. ¶ 54), which is depicted at the inner trailing edge, as
claimed).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 4–9 and 28 depending therefrom. The
Examiner relies on the same findings with respect to independent claims 10
and 19, and therefore, for essentially the same reasons set forth supra, we
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 19, and claims
13–18 and 23–27, 29, and 30 depending therefrom. Final Act. 7–13.

Appeal 2019-001997
Application 14/787,490

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–10, 13–19, and 23–30
is REVERSED.

REVERSED