Ex Parte BrownDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 201713471718 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/471,718 05/15/2012 Charles W. Brown 67097-1868PUSl;61651US01 3852 54549 7590 12/15/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER WHITE, ALEXANDER A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2017 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 CHARLES W. BROWN Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charles W. Brown (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—13 and 16—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 The Appeal Brief (dated Nov. 25, 2015, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”) identifies United Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A detachable fan blade platform comprising: a body having lateral sides each having a channel; and a seal removably and slidably received in each of the channels and retained therein without adhesive. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1,3,4, 8—10, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forgue (US 2010/0150724 Al, pub. June 17, 2010) and Brown (US 7,762,781 Bl, iss. July 27, 2010). II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forgue, Brown, and Ammann (US 2010/0172760 Al, pub. July 8, 2010). III. Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forgue, Brown, and Tomita (US 7,252,477 B2, iss. Aug. 7, 2007). IV. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forgue, Brown, Tomita, and Tinnerman (US 3,468,212, iss. Sept. 23, 1969). V. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forrester (US 6,520,742 Bl, iss. Feb. 18, 2003) and Brown. 2 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 VI. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forrester, Brown, and Pool (US 4,393,650, iss. July 19, 1983). VII. Claims 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forrester, Brown, and Tomita. VIII. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forgue and Tomita. IX. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forgue, Brown, Tomita, and Forrester. DISCUSSION Rejection I Claims 1, 3, 8—10, and 19 Appellant argues for patentability of independent claims 1 and 19 together as a group, and does not assert any separate arguments for patentability of claims 3 and 8—10 apart from their dependence, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 1—2. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 3, 8—10, and 19 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Forgue discloses a detachable fan blade platform that includes, in relevant part, “channel[s] (‘groove’, ‘[t]he seal is fastened to the platform by bonding the attachment part 61 into a groove formed along the lateral edge of the plate 40 forming the platform, ’ 1 [0033]); and a seal (5, 6) removably received in each of the channels (Figs. 1—5).” Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner acknowledges that Forgue fails to disclose “the seals being slidably received and being retained within the 3 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 channels without adhesive.” Id. at 4. However, the Examiner finds that Brown discloses “a seal (31) removably and slidably received in each of the c-shaped channels (Fig. 5; Col. 3, lines 59—63) and retained therein without adhesive.” Id. (citing col. 3,1. 59-col. 4,1. 15). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to modify the platform of Forgue by providing that the seals are slidably received in c-shaped channels and are retained within the channels without adhesive, as taught by Brown.” Id. According to the Examiner, the proposed modification “would allow one to retain the fan blade with mostly compressive forces, thus allowing for the use of lighter materials, such as ceramics.” Id. Appellant argues that “a skilled worker would not modify Forgue to include the seal of Brown” because “Forgue utilizes a platform secured to a hub using pins,” whereas Brown “uses a platform retained to a blade by the compressive forces of a seal received in grooves between the blade and platform.” Appeal Br. 3. This argument is unpersuasive because it is not responsive to the rejection presented by the Examiner. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Forgue for teaching a detachable fan blade platform having a groove, and relies on Brown only for teaching a seal that is removably received in a platform channel and retained without adhesive. See Final Act. 4. As the Examiner explains, although “the platforms of Forgue and Brown may be secured to the hub in different manners[,] the modification to Forgue made by the [EJxaminer relies on the teachings of Brown’s seal retaining structures, not Brown’s platform’s hub connection.” Ans. 3. In this regard, Appellant’s argument appears to rely on bodily incorporation of specific structural details of the overall invention disclosed 4 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 by Brown (i.e., blade platform 21) into Forgue, which is not the standard for an obviousness rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant asserts that “nowhere does Brown disclose that adhesive is not used to retain the seal.” Appeal Br. 3. This argument is unconvincing. The Examiner takes the position that Brown’s “components are held securely by compressive forces, resulting in no need for additional means of securing those components.” Ans. 4 (citing Brown, col. 2, lines 47—58; col. 4, lines 2—7, 20-26, 33—35). According to the Examiner, although “there is no explicit mention of adhesive or a lack there of regarding the seals, the fact that Brown explicitly notes that compressive forces are used to secure the arrangement’s components at the seal joint means that no adhesive is used in securing the seals.” Id. In this regard, Appellant does not specifically address or identify a deficiency in the Examiner’s finding as to the disclosure of Brown, which is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant also argues that “[mjodifying the Forgue arrangement with Brown would change the principle of operation in Forgue rendering the arrangement unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 3. This argument is nothing more than a bald assertion. Appellant does not provide factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to explain why the proposed combination of teachings would change the basic principles of operation of Forgue’s platform, render it unsuitable for functioning as a platform for a gas turbine engine blade, or yield anything other than a result that would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Inti Co. v. Tehflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when 5 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 it does no more results.”). As the Examiner “the seals of Forgue have circular portions and ... the grooves of Brown are circular or rectangular to accommodate associated seals, and accordingly work to shape the seals and grooves to be complementary to one another in order to provide a seal that properly functions.” Ans. 5. Furthermore, Appellant does not proffer any evidence or technical reasoning to support the bald assertion that Forgue’s reinforcing ribs would “impede the seal from being ‘slidably received’ in a channel.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Forgue, Figs. 5, 5A). Therefore, this assertion amounts to unsupported attorney argument, and, thus, is entitled to little weight. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3, 8—10, and 19 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forgue and Brown. Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites, in relevant part, that “the channels provide C-shape grooves.” Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Brown teaches this feature. See Final Act. 5 (citing Brown, Fig. 4). Appellant argues that “[t]he c-shaped groove of Brown requires that the shear pin slots be ‘rectangular or circular in cross sectional shape.’” Appeal Br. 3 (citing Brown, col. 4,11. 1—2). Appellant asserts that “a skilled worker would not use the bulbous seal of Forgue with the channel of Brown[,] as doing so would change the principle of operation.” Id. This 6 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 argument is unpersuasive. Although we appreciate Appellant’s observation regarding the cross-sectional shape of Brown’s shear pin slots {id.), Appellant does not offer any reasoning to explain why the combination of teachings proposed by the Examiner would change the basic principles of operation of Forgue’s platform, render it unsuitable for functioning as a platform for a gas turbine engine blade, or yield anything other than a result that would have been predictable to one of ordinary' skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 4 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Forgue and Brown. Rejection II In contesting the rejection of claim 2, Appellant relies on the arguments directed to the rejection of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, adding only that “Ammann does not cure” the purported deficiencies in the combination of Forgue and Brown. Appeal Br. 4. For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim l, and, thus, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forgue, Brown, and Ammann. Rejection III In rejecting claim 5, which depends from claim 4, the Examiner finds that Forgue and Brown fail to disclose that “the bulb includes a hole, and . . . a pin received in the hole preventing the bulb from collapsing radially 7 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 inward.” Final Act. 8. However, the Examiner finds that Tomita discloses “the bulb (the circular cross-section of the seal) having a longitudinal hole (3 a), wherein a pin (4) is received in the hole preventing the bulb from collapsing radially inward (Figs. 4A & 4B).” Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to further modify “Forgue by providing that the bulb includes a hole, and further providing a pin received in the hole preventing the bulb from collapsing radially inward, as taught by Tomita,” in order “to reduce the weight of the seal to increase the natural frequency level of the blades so much as to exceed well over the resonance zone and to maintain the rigidity of the seal.” Id. In addition to the arguments advanced for claim 4, discussed above, Appellant further contends that “[t]he Examiner has . . . not provided any reasoning for why a skilled worker would modify the bulbous seal of Forgue with the teachings of Tomita, as Tomita specifies that the sealing pins are ‘column-shaped.’” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Tomita, col. 3,1. 57). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it does not specifically address or point out error in the Examiner’s reasoning articulated in support of the proposed modification of Forgue. Although we appreciate that Tomita discloses “column-shaped sealing pins” (Tomita, col. 3,1. 57), Appellant does not explain how or why this disclosure evinces error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant does not proffer any evidence or persuasive technical rationale to explain why the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to reducing weight and increasing natural frequency of the blades are deficient. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 6—7 (explaining that the Tomita’s “sealing pins allow one to reduce the weight of the seal which in turn alters the natural frequency of 8 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 the blades such that they avoid damaging resonance frequencies, while also providing a sufficient rigidity to the seal”). Appellant argues that, “as Forgue already discloses a design to stiffen the seal, there is no reason a skilled worker would modify Forgue and Brown with Tomita.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Forgue 133); see also Reply Br. 2 (asserting that “the seal of Forgue includes reinforcing ribs 51’ to prevent deformation” (citing Forgue 140)). This line of argument is unconvincing because it relates to Forgue’s unmodified seal without considering the Examiner’s proposed modification of the bulb to include a longitudinal hole, and does not address the reasoning articulated in support thereof. In this regard, the Examiner explains that, although “the seals taught by Forgue are designed to be stiff, the teachings of Tomita provide one of ordinary skill with good reason to purse modification of the seals of Forgue to include a hole that allows one to avoid damaging frequencies and then use a pin to restore any potentially lost stiffness.'’'’ Ans. 7 (emphasis added). Here, the Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify the seal of Forgue to include a hole in the bulb of the seal and a pin inserted in the hole (see Final Act. 8; Ans. 6—7), which Appellant does not persuasively refute. For these reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 5 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 5, and of claim 7, for which Appellant relies on the same argument (see Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2), as unpatentable over Forgue, Brown, and Tomita. 9 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 Rejection IV In rejecting claim 6, which depends from claim 5, the Examiner finds that “Tinnerman teaches that fasteners can be formed of plastic material.” Final Act. 10 (citing Tinnerman, col. 2,11. 16—33; Figs. 1—9). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to modify the platform of the modified Forgue in view of Tomita by forming the pin from plastic material, as taught by Tinnerman,” in order to “allow one to construct the pin from a well-known material having the necessary strength and firmness to be used as a fastener.” Id. The Examiner explains that “plastic is a well-known and cheap material that has the necessary strength and firmness to be used as a fastener (see Tinnerman; Col. 1, lines 46—60: Col. 2, lines 16—33).” Ans. 7. In addition to the arguments advanced for claim 5, discussed above, Appellant further argues that, “as Tomita already discloses ways to plug the end of the longitudinal hole, there is no reason a skilled worker would modify Tomita with a plastic pin, and the Examiner has not satisfied the required burden for a case ofprima facie obviousness.” Appeal Br. 4. In particular, Appellant asserts that “Tinnerman teaches that plastic is softer than other fastener materials (col. 2, 1. 34), and that a plastic fastener should only be used in applications that do not require much strength (col. 3,11. 5— 8).” Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, “one skilled in the art would not modify the seal of Forgue and plug of Tomita as taught by Tinnerman, as such modification would render the seal unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Tinnerman discloses a plastic nut that is softer than a metal stud, and, thus, can be threaded onto the stud without preformed threads. See Tinnerman, col. 2,11. 34—36. 10 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 Tinnerman also discloses that the “nut body, like plastic nuts now known, is suitable only for a light fastener requiring little strength and provides low resistance to turning by a wrench.” Id., col. 3,11. 5—8 (emphasis added). In other words, Tinnerman discloses that, because plastic is softer than metal, a plastic nut secured to a metal stud is suitable only for low strength applications. However, as discussed above, the Examiner proposes using plastic material to form Tomita’s plug, which is inserted into the hole in the bulb of the seal. In this regard, Appellant does not present evidence or persuasive technical explanation to show that there would be no reasonable expectation of success in forming Tomita’s plug of plastic material, or that the combination would render the seal unsuitable or inoperable. For these reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 6 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of 6 as unpatentable over Forgue, Brown, and Tomita. Rejections V—VII Independent claim 11 recites a method of repairing a fan blade platform including, in relevant part, a step of “pulling a removable seal from a groove in the platform.” Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). Appellant argues that Forrester, as relied upon in the rejection, fails to disclose this limitation. See Appeal Br. 4—5. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that Forrester discloses “pulling a removable seal (401, 403) from a groove (grooves in the platform which are used to receive the seals 401 and 403 as shown in Figs. 26 & 27) in the platform (32; Col. 4, lines 1—67; Col. 11, lines 20—58; Figs. 1—27).” Final Act. 10. The Examiner 11 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 also finds that, “as is well known in the art, the components of gas turbine engines are subject to repair or replacement, and thus the removal of a component that is beyond its service life and its subsequent replacement is a well-known fact of the art.” Ans. 9. Appellant persuasively asserts that Forrester’s “seals 401, 403 are not removable, and are instead ‘attached or bonded, such as with an epoxy.’” Appeal Br. 5 (quoting Forrester, col. 10,1. 56). Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that “attachment of the seals to the platform using epoxy does not eliminate the possibility of destructive removal of the seals” (Ans. 9), the Examiner does not point to, nor do we find, any teaching in Forrester constituting a step of pulling a removable seal from a groove in the platform. Even assuming arguendo that repairing and replacing components in a gas turbine engine is a well-known concept (see Ans. 9), the Examiner does not point to any evidence that Forrester’s seals 401, 403 are replaceable components that are removed by pulling, as claimed. In other words, the Examiner’s finding that Forrester teaches a step of pulling removable seals from a groove in the platform lacks adequate evidentiary support. Thus, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the cited references, particularly Forrester as relied upon, discloses the disputed limitation as claimed. Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met the burden of establishing a proper case that independent claim 11 is unpatentable based on the cited references. On this basis, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forrester and Brown. 12 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 In rejecting claims 12, 13, 16, and 17, each of which depends directly or indirectly from independent claim 11, the Examiner does not articulate any findings or reasoning, or rely on any teachings of Pool or Tomita, that would remedy the aforementioned deficiency in the combination of Forrester and Brown. See Final Act. 11—14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a). Rejection VIII In rejecting independent claim 18, the Examiner finds that “Forgue teaches a seal (6) for a detachable fan blade platform comprising a longitudinally extending elastomeric body (61) providing a bulb,” but “fails to teach the bulb having a longitudinal hole.” Final Act. 14. However, the Examiner finds that Tomita teaches this feature (see id. (citing Tomita, col. 4,11. 6—11; col. 5,1. 52—col. 6,1. 3)), and determines that it would have been obvious to modify Forgue’s bulb to include a hole in order “to reduce the weight of the seal to increase the natural frequency level of the blades so much as to exceed well over the resonance zone.” Id. Appellant argues that “Tomita makes clear that its seal should be cylindrical in shape (Col. 3, 1. 57),” and, “[tjhus, a skilled worker would not modify a sealed structure having a wall extending from the bulb with the longitudinal hole of Tomita.” Appeal Br. 5—6. We are not persuaded by this argument for the same reasons, discussed above, that Appellant’s similar argument with respect to claim 5 is not persuasive. Namely, Appellant does not explain why Tomita’s disclosure of “column-shaped sealing pins” (Tomita, col. 3,1. 57) constitutes evidence of error in the Examiner’s proposed combination of Forgue and Tomita. As discussed above, the 13 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings as to why one of ordinary' skill in the art would have been led to modify the bulb of Forgue’s seal to include a longitudinal hole (see Final Act, 14; Ans. 10—11), which Appellant does not persuasively refute. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 18 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 as unpatentable over Forgue and Tomita. Rejection IX In contesting the rejection of claim 20, which depends from claim 19, Appellant argues that “there is no reason a skilled worker would modify Forgue and Brown with Tomita, and the Examiner has not satisfied the required burden for a case ofprima facie obviousness.” Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant asserts “that Tomita has a longitudinal hole in order to maintain the rigidity of the seal” (id. (citing Final Act. 15; Tomita, col. 4,11. 6—11)), but “Forgue already discloses a design to stiffen the seal” (id. (citing Forgue 133)). This contention is substantially similar to the argument advanced for claim 5, discussed above, and is unpersuasive with respect to claim 20 for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Namely, Appellant does not address or identify error in the Examiner’s reasoned position that the pin would restore stiffness to the seal lost by modifying the bulb to include a longitudinal hole. See Ans. 7, 12. In other words, the Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify the seal of Forgue to include a hole in the bulb of the seal and a pin inserted in the hole (see Final Act. 8, 15; Ans. 6—7, 11—12), which Appellant does not 14 Appeal 2017-002390 Application 13/471,718 persuasively refute. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 20 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 as unpatentable over Forgue, Brown, Tomita, and Forrester. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10 and 18—20 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11—13, 16, and 17 is reversed. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation