Weisse, Michael A. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2019

14597692 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
14/597,692 01/15/2015 Michael A. Weisse 74593US02 (U420839US2) 4524
135291 7590 12/19/2019
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2019 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL A. WEISSE,
KWAN HUI, and
LARRY FOSTER

Appeal 2019-003078
Application 14/597,692
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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, 19–21, and 23–26, which

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “United
Technologies Corporation.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003078
Application 14/597,692

2
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to “fan blades for turbofan gas
turbine engines.” Spec. ¶ 1. Apparatus claim 1 and method claim 20 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and, is
reproduced below.
1. A fan blade comprising:
a body having a pressure side, a suction side adjoining
the pressure side along a fan blade leading edge and a fan blade
trailing edge, the suction side defining an opening having a
perimeter;
a cover configured to fit over the opening and comprising
a cover leading edge, a cover trailing edge and a cover top
edge; wherein the cover further comprises multiple plies, in
which some of the plies have sizes and perimeters different than
those of other plies; and
at least one hollow cavity located within the opening
between the cover and a pressure side of the fan blade, wherein
the multiple plies comprise at least one inner ply interposed
between one outermost top ply and one innermost bottom ply
and wherein at least one of the outermost top ply and the
innermost bottom ply have perimeters that are co-extensive
with a perimeter of the opening.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Evans et al. (“Evans”) US 5,375,978 Dec. 27, 1994
Deal et al. (“Deal”) US 2011/0211965 A1 Sept. 1, 2011
Viens et al. (“Viens”) US 2013/0039774 A1 Feb. 14, 2013
Appeal 2019-003078
Application 14/597,692

3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3–9, 19, 20, and 23–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Deal and Evans.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Deal,
Evans, and Viens.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 19, 20, and 23–26
as unpatentable over Deal and Evans
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 and 20
Appellant presents arguments regarding claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 5–7)
and presents similar arguments regarding claim 20 (see Appeal Br. 9–11).
We select claim 1 for review, with claim 20 standing or falling with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings on Deal for disclosing
the limitations of claim 1, including the disclosure of “opening (52),” “cover
(50),” and “cavity (54).”3 Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner
acknowledges that Deal “does not disclose wherein the cover further
comprises multiple plies” and wherein “the plies have sizes and perimeters
different than those of other plies.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on
Evans for disclosing “a blade having a cover comprising multiple plies” in

2 The Examiner withdraws “[t]he 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
AIA), second paragraph rejections of claims 8, 21 and 26 as being
indefinite.” Ans. 9.
3 Regarding the recited “co-extensive” language of claim 1, Deal teaches
that “[c]avity cover 50 engages with socket [i.e., “opening”] 52, covering an
opening and completing a continuous first surface of blade 30.” Deal ¶ 22;
see also id. at ¶¶ 23, 24, 26.
Appeal 2019-003078
Application 14/597,692

4
accordance with the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing Evans, Figs.
1, 2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify
the apparatus of Deal et al. by forming the cover so that it further comprises
multiple plies” of different sizes and perimeters “as taught in Evans et al for
the purpose of making the composite blade highly resistant to delamination
and failure caused by bending and impact.” Final Act. 4–5. We understand
the Examiner to propose modifying Deal’s cover and constructing it of
multiple plies in accordance with Evans. See Final Act. 4. This is consistent
with Appellant’s contentions that Evans does not disclose a corresponding
“cover.” See Appeal Br. 6 (“Evans does not even teach or disclose a cover
for a blade”); Reply Br. 2 (“No cover is taught by Evans.”), 6.
Regarding Deal’s cover, Appellant contends that one skilled in the art
“would not be motivated to replace the cover 50 of Deal with a cover formed
from multiple plies.” Appeal Br. 7. However, the Examiner does not
propose replacing Deal’s cover 50; instead, the Examiner stated that it would
have been obvious “to modify” Deal’s cover 50 so as to “form[] the cover”
of multiple plies “as taught in Evans.” Final Act. 4–5. In other words,
Appellant’s focus on Evan’s cover (“the teachings of Evans at best would be
to make the outermost plies the smallest” (Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br.
6)), while ignoring the Examiner’s modification of Deal’s cover by
employing Evans’ laminate method of manufacture, is not persuasive of
Examiner error. To be clear, the Examiner is referencing Figures 1 and 2 of
Evans (see Final Act. 4, Ans. 9) whereas Appellant is addressing Figure 4 of
Evans (see Appeal Br. 6). As the Examiner points out, “Appellant has
misconstrued what Evans is showing in Fig. 4” because Figure 4 of Evans
discloses how the different plies are arranged prior to assembly in order to
Appeal 2019-003078
Application 14/597,692

5
construct the blade from the inside out, i.e., “starting at the centerplane 24
and working outwards to the convex (26) and concave (28) sides of the
blade.” Ans. 11; see also Evans 6:4–16. Appellant re-focuses on Figure 2
of Evans arguing that the outermost plies shown therein are the plies for root
20. See Reply Br. 3. However, the Examiner is not addressing how the root
of Evan’s blade 10 is constructed, but instead how composite airfoil 12 is
constructed. See Final Act. 4, Ans. 9; see also Evans 4:43–54 (“Composite
airfoil 12 is made up of filament reinforced laminations 30 formed from a
composite material lay-up generally indicated at 36, in FIG. 2.”).
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, Appellant is not
persuasive that claims 1 and 20 are patentable over Deal and Evans. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as expressed above.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3, 5, 9, 24, 25
For each of these dependent claims, Appellant contends that they are
“allowable for at least the same reasons” as discussed above. Appeal Br. 8,
9, 12. Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 9, 24, and 25.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 4, 6–8, 19, 23, 26
For each of these dependent claims, Appellant recites the limitation in
question and states, “[t]his feature is simply not found in Evans.” Appeal
Br. 8, 9, 12, 13. We have been instructed that general allegations of error,
fail to meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) and is thus
unpersuasive. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
Appeal 2019-003078
Application 14/597,692

6
found in the prior art.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 4, 6–8, 19, 23, and 26.
The rejection of claim 21
as unpatentable over Deal, Evans, and Viens
Appellant does not argue this rejection, but instead contends that this
claim is “allowable for at least the same reasons” as above. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as being unpatentable over Deal, Evans,
and Viens.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9, 19,
20, 23–26
103 Deal, Evans 1, 3–9, 19, 20,
23–26

21 103 Deal, Evans, Viens 21
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9, 19–21,
23–26

No 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