Ex Parte Davidson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14290352 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/290,352 05/29/2014 Dwight Eric DAVIDSON
13152 7590 06/29/2018
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
269102/22113-0198 4781
EXAMINER
ELLIOTT, TOPAZ L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DWIGHT ERIC DAVIDSON,
STEPHEN JOSEPH BALSONE, and
BRIAN DENVER POTTER
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Dwight Eric Davidson et al. ("Appellants") 1 seek review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office
Action dated December 20, 2016 ("Final Act"), rejecting claims 1-17. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies the real parties in interest as Appellants and
General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A turbine bucket assembly, comprising:
a single-lobe joint having an integral platform, the joint
having a first axial length;
a non-segmented airfoil extending radially outward from
the integral platform and having a tip end with a second axial
length, the second axial length being less than the first axial
length; and
a turbine wheel having a receptacle with a geometry
corresponding to the single-lobe joint and being coupled to the
single-lobe joint;
wherein the non-segmented airfoil is a single continuous
material, the single continuous material being a turbine bucket
material, and the turbine wheel includes a turbine wheel material,
the turbine wheel material having a lower heat resistance and a
higher thermal expansion than the turbine bucket material.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Suciu (US 2012/0020805 Al, published Jan. 26, 2012),
Smarsly (US 2011/0305578 Al, published Dec. 15, 2011), and Pandey (US
2012/0051930 Al, published Mar. 1, 2012).
II. Claims 9-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Suciu, Smarsly, Pandey, and Flesch (US 2012/0255176
Al, published Oct. 11, 2012).
2
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
ANALYSIS
Rejection I-Claims 1---8 and 12-14
Appellants argue for patentability of claims 1-8 and 12-14 as a group.
Appeal Br. 4--9. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims
2-8 and 12-14 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Suciu discloses a turbine
bucket assembly comprising a joint, a non-segmented airfoil (blade 24), and
a turbine wheel (rotor disk 26). Final Act. 5 (citing Suciu Fig. 4, i-fi-12, 15,
19); see also Suciu Figs. 1-2. The Examiner states that the plain meaning of
an airfoil is "a streamlined surface designed in such a way that [] air flowing
around it produces useful motion." Ans. 3. 2 Appellants' Specification
states, "[t]he airfoil 110 is non-segmented (for example, not having a
separate tip segment and root segment and/or being a single continuous
material as is shown in FIG. 2)." Spec. i-f 16. The Examiner determines that
because "a single continuous material" follows to clarify the term "non-
segmented," "it follows that a non-segmented blade would be a single
continuous material." Ans. 3. As such, the Examiner finds that Suciu
discloses a streamlined surface designed in such a way that air flowing
around it produces useful motion, which, as shown in the line-shaded portion
34 of Figure 2, constitutes an airfoil formed of a single continuous material.
Id. at 4. The Examiner notes that the cavity in the airfoil shown in Figure 2
of Suciu does not detract from the airfoil being a single continuous material
because the airfoil is a "streamlined surface," and because all portions of the
2 The Examiner cites to the url: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-
12/F oilSim/Manual/fsimOO 1 n.htm.
3
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
airfoil are connected via the material of the airfoil to all other portions of the
airfoil. Id. at 4--5.
The Examiner finds, however, that Suciu does not disclose a single-
lobe joint, the turbine wheel having a receptacle with a geometry
corresponding to the single-lobe joint, or the materials of the turbine bucket
assembly. Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Pandey for disclosing a
single-lobe joint (dovetail 28) and a receptacle (dovetail slot 88) of a turbine
wheel (turbine disk 86) with a geometry corresponding to the single-lobe
joint. Id. at 6 (citing Pandey Fig. 7, i-fi-127, 41 ). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify the turbine bucket assembly of
Suciu to include a single-lobe joint, as taught by Pandey, to removably
secure a blade to a body while allowing for some difference in thermal
expansion. Id.
The Examiner further relies on Smarsly to teach a turbine bucket
material (a titanium aluminide alloy for turbine blade 14) and a turbine
wheel material (a nickel superalloy, such as Iconel 718, for rotor base 12),
where the turbine wheel material has a lower heat resistance and a higher
thermal expansion than the turbine bucket material. Id. (citing Smarsly i-fi-1 3,
8, 1 O); see also Smarsly Abstract, Fig. 1. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to use, in the modified turbine bucket assembly of
Suciu, a titanium aluminide alloy as a turbine bucket material and a nickel
superalloy as a turbine wheel material, as taught by Smarsly, to provide a
light weight turbine bucket and a fatigue resistant wheel. Id. at 7.
Appellants contest the Examiner's construction of the claim term
"airfoil." Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants point out that the website the Examiner
obtained the definition of "airfoil" from additionally states, "[t ]he cross
4
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
section of an airplane wing is an airfoil." Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's construction is inconsistent with the
Specification and an ordinary artisan would understand an "airfoil" to be the
whole structure or body, not merely the surface of the structure or body. Id.
at 4.
We are persuaded that the Examiner's construction of "airfoil" is
incorrect and that an ordinary artisan would understand this term to mean the
whole structure or body, as Appellants contend. Reply Br. 4.
Appellants also contend the Examiner incorrectly equates the term
"non-segmented" to "single continuous material." Id. Referencing
paragraph 16 of the Specification, Appellants explain that the conjunction
"and/or" necessitates that "single continuous material" has a separate and
independent meaning from "not having a separate tip segment and root
segment." Id.; see also Appeal Br. 6. Appellants contend that paragraph 17
of Suciu describes an airfoil that is hollow due to the inclusion of a cavity,
and further specifies that the cavity is either filled with a honeycomb, rib, or
fin structure, or contains a gas or a vacuum. Appeal Br. 4. Appellants argue
that a hollow configuration is not a single continuous material and "the
inclusion of a gas necessitates that more than one material is present in the
airfoil." Id.; see also Reply Br. 4 (stating "an article which includes both a
surface wall and a cavity, wherein the cavity necessarily includes a
compositional makeup different from the composition of the surface wall, is
not a single continuous material").
We agree with Appellants that the term "non-segmented" is not
limited to "a single continuous material" by the description at paragraph 16
of the Specification. Id. But we are not persuaded that Suciu fails to
5
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
disclose a non-segmented airfoil that is a single continuous material. While
equating "non-segmented" with "single continuous material" does not
account for other possible non-segmented structures described in paragraph
16 of the Specification, one type of non-segmented structure that is
described is a single continuous material, as discussed below. 3
Paragraph 17 of Suciu states:
The blade 24 is hollowed to define a cavity 34C, by casting
or other conventional process, from the airfoil tip section 34 T
toward the root section 30. The cavity 34C may be filled with
various honeycomb, rib or fin structure. Alternatively, or in
addition, the cavity 34C may [be] filled with a gas or contain a
vacuum.
Suciu i-f 17 (bolding omitted; emphasis added); see also Suciu, Fig. 2. As
this passage supports, the airfoil (blade 24) identified by the Examiner as the
line-shaded portion 34 in Figure 2 can be considered a non-segmented
structure and a single continuous material. Appellants' Specification does
not describe that a "non-segmented" structure or a "single continuous
material" must be completely solid and have no internal void, such as a
cavity. Further, Suciu discloses that cavity 34C may alternatively "contain a
vacuum" rather than be "filled with a gas." The portion of paragraph 17 of
Suciu quoted above makes clear that no additional material of any type need
be provided. Accordingly, Appellants' contention that the airfoil of Suciu is
not a single continuous material is unpersuasive.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner's stated reason for
modifying the turbine bucket assembly of Suciu to have a single-lobe joint,
3 We thus find that any error by the Examiner in equating the term "non-
segmented" to "single continuous material" is harmless.
6
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
as taught by Pandey (i.e., a single-lobe joint is standard and allows some
difference in thermal expansion4), is based on impermissible hindsight
reconstruction. Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 5. Appellants assert that
the Examiner points to nothing in Pandey that supports "Pandey teaches a
single-lobe joint for removably securing the blade to the body." Appeal Br.
7.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner incorrectly reasons that it
would have been obvious to modify the turbine bucket assembly of Suciu to
use a single-lobe joint for removably securing the blade to the body. As the
Examiner explains, "Pandey teaches that the 'blades [26] may be mounted to
a turbine disk [86]' in a process that involves sliding the array of blades into
the dovetail (i.e. single-lobe) slots." Ans. 5 (citing Pandey Fig. 7; i-f 41).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR
Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill
can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability."
Id. at 417. Moreover, an "[e]xpress suggestion to substitute one equivalent
for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious." In re
Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982). Appellants have not persuasively
argued that, in view of the disclosure in Pandey of both single-lobe and
multi-lobe configurations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have not
reasonably expected success in making the proposed modification.
4 We note that the Examiner withdrew "to allow some difference in thermal
expansion" as a basis for making the modification. Final Act. 3.
7
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
Appellants further argue there is no indication of the
interchangeability of a single-lobe joint with a multi-lobe joint, or of the
benefits the Examiner says will be obtained by modifying Suciu. Appeal Br.
7; Reply Br. 5.
This argument is also unpersuasive. The Examiner relies on Pandey
for teaching a single-lobe joint to yield the predictable result of removably
securing a blade to a body. Ans. 6. Appellants do not provide persuasive
argument or evidence to show that a single-lobe joint would not yield such
predictable result.
Appellants also contend that Smarsly teaches away from forming a
non-segmented airfoil. Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 5. Appellants note
Smarsly discloses that, until Smarsly' s invention, "it has not been possible to
create a hybrid or a graduated blisk design" because the aluminum of turbine
blades made of a TiAl alloy would diffuse into the joining zone or into the
material used for the rotor base. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Smarsly i-f 5); see also
Reply Br. 5-7. Appellants further argue that differential thermal expansion
is also a problem for dovetail configurations and welded joints, and, as such,
the Examiner's rejection is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Appeal Br. 9 (citing Smarsly i-f 17); Reply Br. 7.
These arguments are unpersuasive. Paragraph 5 of Smarsly is in the
"Background" section, and states, "[u]p until now, in has not been possible
to create a hybrid or graduated blisk design," which discussion relates to
problems in the prior art that may be solved by, or are not necessarily
present in, Smarsly's turbine bucket assembly. As discussed above, the
Examiner finds that Smarsly teaches a turbine bucket material for turbine
blade 14 and a turbine wheel material for rotor base 12. Final Act. 6 (citing
8
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
Smarsly i-fi-1 8, 10). Appellants do not direct us to any disclosure in Smarsly
that turbine blade 14 must be segmented. In this regard, the Examiner
explains that "Smarsly's layered construction is radially inward of the
platform, and is thus not part of the airfoil 14." See Ans. 7. At most,
Smarsly discloses a turbine bucket assembly that has components made of
different materials.
Appellants' contention regarding problems associated with dovetail
configurations and welded joints does not address the rejection as stated,
which relies on Smarsly for teaching materials for an airfoil and a turbine
wheel. See Ans. 7 (explaining that "the combination does not involve a
welded joint"). Furthermore, as for Appellants' contentions with respect to
problems found in the joining zone as discussed in paragraph 5 of Smarsly,
in dovetail configurations, or in welded joints, a combination of prior art
reference may simultaneously have advantages and disadvantages, and the
benefits, both lost and gained, are to be weighed against each other. See
Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006);
Winner Int'! Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir.
2000). As the Examiner points to benefits taught by Smarsly for modifying
the turbine bucket assembly of Suciu, which Appellants do not refute, we are
not persuaded that Smarsly teaches away from the proposed modification.
We note Appellants' contentions that the disclosure of Heppenstall 5 is
deficient for a number of reasons. Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 7-8.
However, the Examiner has adequately addressed Appellants' arguments
and has indicated Heppenstall is not essential to the rejection.
5 EP 0799972 Al, published Oct. 8, 1997.
9
Appeal2017-009502
Application 14/290,352
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
Suciu, Smarsly, and Pandey. Claims 2-8 and 12-14 fall with claim 1.
Rejection II-Claims 9-11 and 15-17
For dependent claims 9-11 and 15-17, Appellants rely on the same
arguments as those made for parent claims 1 and 13 (Rejection I). Appeal
Br. 10. As Appellants do not apprise us of any error in the rejection of claim
1 or 13, we, accordingly, sustain the rejection of claims 9-11 and 15-17
over Suciu, Smarsly, Pandey, and Flesch for the same reasons as for claims
1 and 13.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10