14974151 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2020)

United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 2020

14974151 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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. 14/974,151 12/18/2015 Frederick M. Schwarz 92378US01; 67097-3318US1 6357 54549 7590 05/26/2020 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 05/26/2020 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 FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ and DANIEL L. GYSLING ____________ Appeal 2019-006260 Application 14/974,151 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Dec. 21, 2018, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 3–9, 21, and 22.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed May 20, 2019, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 10–17, 19, and 20 are withdrawn, and claims 2 and 18 are canceled. Final Act. 2; After-Final Amendment 2, 4 (filed Feb. 14, 2019) (entered by the Examiner in an Advisory Action, dated Feb. 26, 2019, hereinafter “Adv. Act.”). Appeal 2019-006260 Application 14/974,151 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to “a gas turbine engine having mistuned fan blades.” Spec. para. 1. Claims 1 and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a fan rotor having fan blades received within an outer nacelle; and said fan blades being provided with at least a first type having a first natural frequency, and a second type having a second natural frequency and said fan rotor having a first mount structure intended for said first type and a distinct second mount structure intended for said second type, and said first type of fan blade fitting into the first mount structure intended for said first type, but there being a first obstruction preventing said first type of fan blade from being placed into the second mount structure intended for said second type, and said second type of fan blade fitting into the second mount structure intended for said second type, but there being a second obstruction preventing said second type of fan blade from being placed into the first mount structure intended for said first type; and wherein a distance is defined from a plane defined by leading edges of said fan blades to an axial location of a forwardmost part of said nacelle, and an outer diameter of said fan blades being defined, and a ratio of said distance to said outer diameter is between 0.2 and 0.5. Appeal 2019-006260 Application 14/974,151 3 REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.3 II. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu4 and Doran.5 III. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, Doran, and Dijoud.6 ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner finds that the limitation “said mount structure” in claim 9 is unclear as to whether it refers to the first mount structure or the second mount structure of claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. Final Act. 3. As Appellant does not address the rejection (see Appeal Br. 3–5), Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 9 as being indefinite. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on appeal). 3 In light of Appellant’s amendment of claim 3 in the After-Final Amendment, filed Feb. 14, 2019, we consider the indefiniteness rejection of claim 3 to be withdrawn. Compare Final Act. 3, with Adv. Act. 2 (“Applicant only amended claim 3 to recite that one portion of the nacelle extends axially farther from the blades than another portion.”) (emphasis added). 4 Qiu et al., WO 2014/137685 A1, published Sept. 12, 2014. 5 Doran, US 2,271,971, issued Feb. 3, 1942. 6 Dijoud et al., US 8,876,472, issued Nov. 4, 2014. Appeal 2019-006260 Application 14/974,151 4 Rejection II The Examiner finds Qiu discloses a gas turbine engine including, inter alia, fan rotor 72, having a mount structure, and fan blades 42. Final Act. 3– 4 (citing Qiu, Fig. 1). However, the Examiner finds that Qiu’s fan blades 42 do not include first and second fan blade types having a first and a second natural frequency, respectively, and Qiu’s fan blade mount structure does not have first and second distinct mount structures that allow only the first blade type to be fitted into the first mount structure and only the second blade type to be fitted into the second mount structure. Id. at 4. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Doran’s blades 16, 17 include a first blade type 19 having a first natural frequency and a second blade type 21 having a second natural frequency, which is inherently different from the first natural frequency as blades 16, 17 have a different mass distribution. Id (citing Doran, Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds that Doran’s rotor 10, 11 further includes a first mount structure 14 for only fitting first blade type 19 via a first obstruction and a second mount structure 15 for only fitting second blade type 21. Id. Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to replace the blade retention means as taught by Qiu by simply substituting the blade retention means as taught by Doran in order to yield the predictable results of holding blades with good engagement and to reduce manufacturing cost.” Id. at 5 (citing Doran, col. 1, ll. 1–22). Appellant argues that “the Examiner proposes no reason to incorporate Doran into the Qiu reference,” and, furthermore, “[t]he only reason here is hindsight.” Appeal Br. 4. In particular, Appellant asserts that a skilled artisan would not modify Qiu’s fan blades, which are large and are Appeal 2019-006260 Application 14/974,151 5 subject to bird strikes, with Doran’s disclosure of a “limited holding structure (Fig. 2) or no holding structure (Fig. 1).” Id. We appreciate that because Qiu’s fan blades 42 are mounted into fan rotor 72, Qiu includes a mounting structure for mounting the root of fan blades 42 into rotor 72. See Qiu, Fig. 1. However, it is undisputed that Qiu fails to disclose first and second distinct mount structures, as called for by independent claim 1. Doran is directed to turbine blades 16, 17, having mounting structures 19, 21, or 26, 27, respectively, for holding blades 16, 17 to rotor 10, 11. See Doran, Figs. 1, 2. Although Duran’s mounting structures 19, 21, or 26, 27 allow fitting of only blades 16, 17, respectively, we find the Examiner’s rejection insufficient to explain what would have prompted a skilled artisan to substitute Doran’s mounting structures 19, 21, or 26, 27 for those of Qiu’s. Specifically, the Examiner does not provide any findings that Qiu recognized a problem with its mounting structure for mounting the root of fan blades 42 into rotor 72. Hence, the first reason proffered by the Examiner to modify the teachings of Qiu, i.e., for “holding blades with good engagement,” appears to already be adequately performed by Qiu. As to the second reason proffered by the Examiner to modify the teachings of Qiu, i.e., “reduce manufacturing cost,” we do not find support in the Examiner’s rejection for the proposition that substituting Doran’s mounting structures 19, 21, or 26, 27 for those of Qiu would have any effect on manufacturing costs. In particular, we note that Doran’s disclosure for reducing manufacturing costs is limited to the “machining of bucket wheels with narrow slots or groves . . . on both sides of the dovetails.” Doran, col. 1, ll. 12–17. The Examiner does not provide any findings that Qiu’s mounting Appeal 2019-006260 Application 14/974,151 6 structure for mounting the root of fan blades 42 into rotor 72 includes “narrow slots or groves . . . on both sides of the dovetails,” such that substituting Doran’s mounting structures 19, 21, or 26, 27 for those of Qiu would “reduce manufacturing cost.” Hence, without a persuasive articulated rationale based on rational underpinnings for modifying the reference as proposed, the Examiner’s rejection appears to be the result of hindsight analysis. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)) (“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 and 3–9 as unpatentable over Qiu and Doran. Rejection III The Examiner’s use of the Dijoud disclosure does not remedy the deficiency of the Qiu and Doran combination discussed supra. See Final Act. 7–10. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 21 and 22 as unpatentable over Qiu, Doran, and Dijoud. Appeal 2019-006260 Application 14/974,151 7 CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 9 112(b) Indefiniteness 9 1, 3–9 103 Qiu, Doran 1, 3–9 21, 22 103 Qiu, Doran, Dijoud 21, 22 Overall Outcome 9 1, 3–8, 21, 22 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART