13711800 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

Ex Parte Mardis

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2019

13711800 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/711,800 12/12/2012 Joshua L. Mardis 54549 7590 04/01/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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. 63961US01; 67097-21 ?lPUSl CONFIRMATION NO. 5589 EXAMINER CORDAY, CAMERON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2019 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSHUA L. MARDIS 1 Appeal 2017-011616 Application 13/711, 800 Technology Center 3700 Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-14, and 17-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 United Technologies Corporation (Appellant) is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-011616 Application 13/711,800 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a multi-piece blade for a gas turbine engine. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A blade assembly for a gas turbine engine comprising: a rim seal including leading and trailing edge seal portions joined to one another by an axial portion to provide a unitary structure that forms a cradle, the leading and trailing edge seal portions and the axial portion together providing a notch, wherein the leading and trailing edge portions of the rim seal provide a portion of a platform defining a continuous contoured boundary of a core flow path; and a blade having a root received in the notch, wherein the axial portion is arranged beneath the root opposite an airfoil, and receives the root in the cradle. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Garcia-Crespo McCaffrey US 8,840,374 B2 Sept. 23, 2014 US 2009/0257875 Al Oct. 15, 2009 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5, 10-14, 17-20, 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102( e) as anticipated over Garcia-Crespo. Claims 7 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia-Crespo and McCaffrey. 2 Appeal 2017-011616 Application 13/711,800 OPINION 35 USCÂ§ 102(e)- Claims 1-3, 5, 10-14, and 17-20 Appellant argues the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 10-14, and 17-20 together. We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant argues that Garcia-Crespo does not anticipate claim 1 as "the leading and trailing edge portions of [Garcia-Crespo's] adaptor assembly 100 [i.e. angel wings 164, 166] do not provide a portion of the platform 111," as required by the claim. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant provides two reasons for this position. Id. at 5. First, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the angel wings to be part of the platform. Id. Second, that the angel wings are not part of the platform as defined by Garcia-Crespo. Id. Before looking to the prior art to understand claim terms, we look to the patent disclosure. See Ans 7 ("the quality that appellant defines for their platform."). During examination, we give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Appellant's Background section of the Specification describes the platform as follows: A typical gas engine includes turbine blades that are a single piece. The turbine blade includes a root, which may be a fir-tree shape, received in a correspondingly shaped rotor slot. A platform is supported on the root and provides an aerodynamic inner flow path through the stage. An airfoil extends outward radially from the platform. The platform may provide complex geometries and includes the seal geometry that seals with adjacent structure to the rotor. 3 Appeal 2017-011616 Application 13/711,800 It may be desirable to provide at least a portion of the platform that is separate from the airfoil. In one example, a composite platform has been provided, which includes forward and aft portions of the root. The platform includes an aperture through which the airfoil extends. The composite platform entirely surrounds the airfoil. Spec. ,r,r 3--4 ( emphasis added). It is unclear why one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the angel wings to be part of the platform as described in Appellant's Specification. As noted above, the platform includes "complex geometries," "forward and aft portions of the root," and "the seal geometry that seals with adjacent structure to the rotor." Further, the platform can be a composite platform, with portions separable from the airfoil. Garcia-Crespo's angel wings 164, 166 are consistent with this understanding of the platform, just as Appellant's leading and trailing edge seal portions. The fact that Garcia- Crespo may or may not consider the angel wings part of the platform does not mean that one of skill in the art would not view them as part of the platform as described by Appellant. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. Appellant also states, without explanation, "angel wings 164, 166 ... do not provide a continuous contoured boundary along with platform 111." Appeal Br. 5. We note that the term "continuous contoured boundary" is not used in Appellant's Specification. Further, Appellant's briefing does not establish why "angel wings 164, 166 ... do not provide a continuous contoured boundary along with platform 111." Without more, Appellant does not identify what distinguishes the claimed continuous contoured boundary from that shown by Garcia-Crespo. 4 Appeal 2017-011616 Application 13/711,800 For all of these reasons, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1- 3, 5, 10-14, and 17-20. 35 USCÂ§ 102(e)- Claims 22, 24, and 26 Claims 22, 24, and 26 each depend from a different independent claim and require "wherein a surface of the rim seal is flush with a surface of the platform." Appellant argues that this is not taught by Garcia-Crespo. Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner admits that the rim seal is not flush with the platform in the radial direction, but argues that "the rim seal is clearly flush with the platform in the axial direction. There are no gaps between the rim seal and the platform in this direction." Ans. 7. We do not agree. Looking to Garcia-Crespo Figures 2--4, cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 4 ), the Examiner does not identify which surface of the rim seal is flush, i.e. completely level or even with, a surface of the platform. Such a surface is not apparent from the figures. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 22, 24, and 26. 35 USCÂ§ 103(a)- Claims 22, 24, and 26 Concerning the combination of Garcia-Crespo and McCaffrey, Appellant argues that McCaffrey also does not teach a rim seal flush with the platform. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that in McCaffrey, the platform 34 is recessed from the rim seal 40. Id. ( citing to McCaffrey fig 1 ). We note that Mc Caffrey does not discuss the relationship between elements 34 and 40 and that the figures are not clear. As pointed out by Appellant, figure 1 appears to show that elements 34 and 40 are either recessed or spaced apart. Figure 3, relied on by the Examiner only shows 5 Appeal 2017-011616 Application 13/711,800 element 34 schematically. Thus, based on the current record, the Examiner has not shown that McCaffrey teaches that elements 34 and 40 are flush. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 22, 24, and 26. 35 USCÂ§ 103(a)- Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and requires "wherein the rim seal and blade are constructed from metallic alloys." The Examiner finds that Garcia-Crespo teaches a metallic alloy rim seal, but not a metallic alloy blade. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that McCaffrey teaches a rim seal and blade made from a nickel (metallic) alloy. Id. The Examiner determines that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to modify the blade assembly of Garcia-Crespo and change the blade material to a metallic alloy as taught by McCaffrey to provide a blade that has a platform that does not crack at increased turbine rotor speeds." Id. Appellant argues "the purpose of Garcia-Crespo is to address attachment issues for turbine buckets made of ceramic materials" and thus, using a metallic blade "would render [Garcia-Crespo] unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Appeal Br. 5---6. However, Appellant's line of reasoning is not supported by Garcia- Crespo. For example, although Garcia-Crespo's independent claims do not specify the blade material, dependent claim 3 ( as well as claim 15) requires "wherein the turbine blade comprises a ceramic matrix composite, metal alloy, or monolithic ceramic." Garcia-Crespo, 6:3-5. Thus, it is unclear how a metallic blade "would render [Garcia-Crespo] unsatisfactory for its intended purpose," when Garcia-Crespo explicitly claims a turbine blade comprising metal alloy. 6 Appeal 2017-011616 Application 13/711,800 As Appellant has not identified deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection, we sustain the rejection of claim 7. 35 USCÂ§ 103(a)- Claims 21, 23, and 25 Claims 21, 23, and 25 each depend from a different independent claim and claim 21 and 23 require "the trailing edge seal portion has a radially outer surface that is aligned with a radially outermost surface of the platform." Claim 25 requires essentially the same limitations, but has slightly different language. The Examiner finds that "McCaffrey teaches (Fig. 1) rim seals ( 40) that have a radially outer surface that is aligned with a radially outermost surface of the platform (34)." Final Act. 6. The Examiner determines that Id. It would have been obvious . . . to modify the blade assembly of Garcia-Crespo and change the trailing edge seal portion to have a radially outer surface that is aligned with a radially outermost surface of the platform, . . . to lessen the pressure drop of fluid that flows across the rim seal platform interface. Appellant argues that "element 40 of McCaffrey is not a portion of the rim seal," rather it "is a separate flow guide." Appeal Br. 6. Appellant reasons that as a result, "a skilled worker would not modify Garcia-Crespo with McCaffrey, as doing so would alter the flow path defined by the platform and adapter assembly." Id. Though McCaffrey does not use the term "rim seal" it is not clear why element 40 would not be considered a portion of a rim seal, or why one of skill in the art would not modify the rim seal of Garcia-Crespo based on the McCaffrey teachings surrounding element 40. McCaffrey's element 40 appears to serve similar purposes to Garcia-Crespo' s rim seal ( angel wings 7 Appeal 2017-011616 Application 13/711,800 164, 166) of guiding flow. Compare McCaffrey ,r,r 18-19, with Garcia- Crespo 4:66-5: 17. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 21, 23, and 25. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-14, 17-21, 23, and 2 5 are affirmed. The Examiner's rejections of claims 22, 24, and 26 are reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8