United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

15727683 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
15/727,683 10/09/2017 Timothy Charles Nash 67097-3678PUS1;99122US01 8818
54549 7590 11/03/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
HAGHIGHIAN, BEHNOUSH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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 TIMOTHY CHARLES NASH

Appeal 2020-002659
Application 15/727,683
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–10, and 12–19. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002659
Application 15/727,683

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellant’s invention “relates to a gas turbine engine airfoil.”
Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A component for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a platform having a radially inner side and a radially outer
side;
a root portion extending from the radially inner portion of
the platform; and
an airfoil extending from the radially outer side of the
platform, the airfoil including:
a pressure side extending between a leading edge and
a trailing edge;
a suction side extending between the leading edge and
the trailing edge; and
a bowed tip portion, wherein the bowed tip portion
extends in a perpendicular direction relative to a mid-camber
line of the airfoil and the perpendicular direction includes a
first component in an axially downstream direction and a
second component in a circumferential direction towards the
suction side.

Rejections
Claims 1, 3–10, and 12–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.
Claims 1, 3–10, and 12–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
and § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Sharma et al. (US 5,525,038, iss. June 11,
1996) (“Sharma”).

Appeal 2020-002659
Application 15/727,683

3

ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
Independent Claims 1 and 10
The Examiner rejects the recitation “a bowed tip portion, wherein the
bowed tip portion extends in a perpendicular direction relative to a mid-
camber line of the airfoil” in claims 1 and 10 as indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
inventor regards as the invention. Final Act. 8; see In re Packard, 751 F.3d
1307, 1310–13 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains
words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague,
incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the
claimed invention.”); see also Ex parte McAward, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5
(PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (explaining that the USPTO considers
a claim indefinite when it “contains words or phrases whose meaning is
unclear”).
The first reason for the rejection of claims 1 and 10 pertains to the
meaning of the term “mid-camber line.” See id. The Examiner withdrew
the rejection for this reason based on the understanding that a “mid-camber
line” is synonymous with the term “mean-camber line.” Ans. 3–6.
Accordingly, the first reason for the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is not on
appeal. However, it is notable that the Appellant did not challenge the
Examiner’s understanding of the term “mid-camber line” as “mean-camber
line.”
The second reason for the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is based on the
Examiner’s explanation that “a blade comprises a stacked sections of airfoil,
each one can have a different cross section and camber. Hence it is also not
Appeal 2020-002659
Application 15/727,683

4

clear the mid-camber of which section in the radial span is recited.” Final
Act. 8; see also Ans. 6–7. This explanation, however, fails to particularly
point out how the claim recitation at issue, i.e., “a bowed tip portion,
wherein the bowed tip portion extends in a perpendicular direction relative
to a mid-camber line of the airfoil,” is indefinite. Among other things, the
claim recitation does not recite stacked sections of airfoil. Nor, does the
claim identify a specific portion of the airfoil where the mid-camber line is
located. Therefore, we determine that this second reason concerns the
breadth of the claims, which is a matter distinct from indefiniteness. See In
re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970); see also Appeal Br. 3; Reply
Br. 1–2. Therefore, the Examiner’s second reason for the rejection of claim
12 as indefinite is not adequately supported.
The third reason for the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is based on the
Examiner’s explanation that:
[A] camber line is a curved line and it is not clear how a [bowed
tip] portion can extend from or be perpendicular to a curved
line because an infinite number of directions can be
perpendicular to a curve. Furthermore, a camber line is a two
dimensional line. The bowed tip portion is a three dimensional
element. Even if one assumes a plane passing through the
bowed tip portion, it is not clear what it means for that plane to
be bowed perpendicular to a line. In other words, it is not clear
what is meant by “perpendicular” and the bowed tip portion
extending in a perpendicular direction relative to the mid-
camber line. It is also not clear if the tip portion is
perpendicular to the mid-camber line, how can it be bowed and
have an angle.
Ans. 8; see Final Act. 8.
In response, the Appellant contends “[a] skilled person would
understand that an airfoil is made of stacked sections . . . with each section
Appeal 2020-002659
Application 15/727,683

5

having a mid-c[]amber line. The stacked sections in the bowed tip portion
are positioned perpendicular to the mid-c[]amber line of a radially inner
section in “the bowed tip portion.” Appeal Br. 4. The Appellant’s
contention is not persuasive.
The Appellant’s contention suggests that the airfoil of the present
invention, including the airfoil’s bowed tip portion, is made of a stack of
radial sections. And, that the radial stack of sections that make up the
bowed tip portion are positioned such that each section is positioned
perpendicular to the mid-camber line of a radially inner section. Even if we
were to agree with the Appellant that “[a] skilled person would understand
that an airfoil is made of stacked sections,” claims 1 and 10 do not call for an
airfoil with stacked sections or a bowed tip portion with stacked sections.
Indeed, claims 1 and 10 recite “a bowed tip portion, wherein the bowed tip
portion extends in a perpendicular direction relative to a mid-camber line of
the airfoil and the perpendicular direction includes a first component in an
axially downstream direction and a second component in a circumferential
direction towards the suction side.” Accordingly, we fail to understand how
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claim limitation in
dispute requires a positional relationship between a section, in a radial stack
of sections, of the airfoil or the bowed tip portion, and a separate section, in
the radial stack of sections, in the bowed tip portion. Moreover, we note that
the Specification does not discuss, and its associated drawings do not depict,
that the airfoil or its bowed tip portion is made of a stack of radial sections.
So, even if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that airfoils can
be made or are made of a stack of radial sections, we fail to understand how
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the Specification that
Appeal 2020-002659
Application 15/727,683

6

the claim limitation in dispute requires the asserted positional relationship
without some discussion of the radial stack of sections in the Specification
or depiction of the radial stack of sections in the drawings. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re
Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The Appellant also contends that “[a] skilled person would recognize
that a perpendicular line can be drawn relative to any portion of a curved
line and the perpendicular direction would indicate the direction the tip
portion is bowed.” Reply Br. 3. The Appellant’s contention is not
persuasive. The Appellant’s contention suggests that one of ordinary skill in
the art could use a portion of the mid-camber line (i.e., curved line) as a
reference to understand if the tip portion is bowed. However, it is unclear
why a portion of the curved line is sufficient as opposed to a point on the
curved line or the entire curved line.
Therefore, the Examiner’s third reason for the rejection of claims 1
and 10 as indefinite is adequately supported.

Dependent Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 18, and 19
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 18, and 19 as indefinite
because “it is not clear what plane of reference is meant when reciting a
percentage of the span” and “it is not clear in which direction the ‘span’ is
defined, for example radial span, axial span, or other spans.” See Final
Act. 8; see Ans. 7, 9. Claim 4, for example, recites “wherein the bowed tip
portion begins at 80% of the span of the airfoil.” Appeal Br. 6, Claims App.
The Appellant argues that “[a] a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that the reference is from the base of the airfoil towards the
Appeal 2020-002659
Application 15/727,683

7

tip portion.” Reply Br. 2; see Appeal Br. 3, 4. The Appellant points to
Figure 3 and the Specification to support this argument. Reply Br. 2. The
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
Figure 3 schematically illustrates for reference percent span positions;
specifically, 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% span positions. See Spec. ¶ 41.
The 0% span position is at the junction of inner platform 76 and airfoil 78,
and the 100% span position is at tip 80 of airfoil 78. See id. at Fig. 3. The
Specification describes Figure 3 as showing “bowed tip portion 100 beings
[sic beginning] at 80% of the span of the airfoil 78 and continues to the tip
80.” Id. ¶ 43. Here, Figure 3 and Specification provide sufficient disclosure
for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the metes and bounds of the
claimed subject matter at issue.
Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 18, and 19
as indefinite is not adequately supported.

Conclusion
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite only for the third reason discussed above.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–9 and 12–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite only because they depend, directly or
indirectly, from an indefinite claim.

Anticipation
In view of our determination that claims 1, 3–10, and 12–19 are
indefinite, supra, it follows that the rejections of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102 must fall because they are necessarily based on a
Appeal 2020-002659
Application 15/727,683

8

speculative assumption as to the meaning of the claims. See In re Aoyama,
656 F.3d 1293, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] claim cannot be both indefinite
and anticipated.”) (quoting Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d
1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); see also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63
(CCPA 1962). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
3–10, and 12–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and § 102(a)(2) as anticipated
by Sharma. It should be understood, however, that our decision in this
regard is pro forma and based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed
subject matter set forth above, and does not reflect on the adequacy of the
prior art evidence applied in support of the rejections.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basi
s
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–10,
12–19
112 Indefinite 1, 3–10,
12–19

1, 3–10,
12–19
102 Sharma 1, 3–10,
12–19
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–10,
12–19

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED