Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2017

13471718 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2017)

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