Ex Parte Slowik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

13926733 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/926,733 06/25/2013
138462 7590 12/19/2018
ANSALDO/STUDIO TORTA
c/o BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
P.O. BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313
Slawomir Slowik
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.
0087748-000069 5596
EXAMINER
DUNLAP, JONATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SLA WO MIR SLOWIK, THOMAS TSCHARNER,
PIOTR BEDNARZ, and MICHAL TOMASZ PRUGAREWICZ
Appeal2018-002309
Application 13/926,733
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, 12-16, and 18-23. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Although the Examiner did not list claim 9 in the "Disposition of Claims"
section of the Final Office Action, the Examiner did reject claim 9 in the
Final Office Action and both the Examiner and Appellant acknowledges that
claim 9 is part of this appeal. Ans. 2; App. Br. 7.
Appeal2018-002309
Application 13/926,733
The invention is directed to a method to determine the appropriate
time to replace a rotor by determining the extent of creeping (time dependent
plastic expansion) in the rotor as a result of exposure to high temperature
operating conditions. Spec. ,r 3. This is done through the use of marks
distributed along the rotor's surface to allow for separate measurements
along the geometry of the rotor at different points in time, such as when it is
first placed in service and after operation, to determine the amount of
creeping from the comparison of these measurements. Id. ,r 14. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method for measuring geometry deformations of
a rotor having a rotor groove with a fir-tree configuration, the
method comprising:
engraving the rotor groove in various locations with
measuring marks;
using the measuring marks as a reference point in
determining, in a first measurement, a length on said rotor
groove prior to the turbine being placed into service;
operating the turbine for a period of time;
determining, in a second measurement, the length on said
rotor groove using again the measuring marks as a reference
point, after the operating period;
comparing the measured lengths of said first and second
measurements; and
determining an amount of creep deformation in said rotor
groove based on a difference between the measured lengths.
App. Br. Claims App'x 1.
2
Appeal2018-002309
Application 13/926,733
Appellant2 (see generally App. Br.) requests review of the following
rejections from the Examiner's Final Action:
I. Claims 1, 3-8, 12-16, and 18-23 rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Telfer (US 8,818,078 B2, issued
August 26, 2014), Pross (US 2002/0019708 Al, published February 14,
2002) and Hovel (US 2011/0099809 Al, published May 5, 2011).
II. Claim 9 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Telfer, Pross, Hovel, and Kamegawa (US 5,568,259,
issued October 22, 1996).
Appellant relies on the same line of arguments in addressing
independent claims 1, 13, and 21. See generally App. Br. Appellant does
not present separate arguments for the dependent claims subject to either
Rejection I or II. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the
subject matter for review on appeal for this rejection. Claims 3-9, 12-16,
and 18-23 stand or fall with claim 1.
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-9,
12-16, and 18-23 for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We add the
following for emphasis.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that the combined
teachings of Telfer and Pross disclose a method for measuring geometry
deformations of a rotor that differs from the claimed invention in that Telfer
and Pross do not teach engraving the markings on a rotor. Final Act. 2--4.
The Examiner finds Hovel discloses laser engraving markings on a turbine
2 ALSTOM Technology Ltd.is the Applicant/ Appellant. Ansaldo Energia IP
UK Limited is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
3
Appeal2018-002309
Application 13/926,733
component to provide an accurate and permanent marking for a visual
coordinate system used for repairing a damaged turbine component. Final
Act. 4; Hovel ,r,r 15, 46. The Examiner determines it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize engraved markings in
Telfer's method, as modified by Pross, to provide a permanent marking as
an accurate reference point for optical measurements of turbine components
(e.g., rotors). Final Act. 4; Hovel ,r,r 46-47.
Appellant argues none of the cited references discloses or suggests
engraving measuring marks in various locations of a surface of a rotor
groove, comparing the measured lengths of the first and second
measurements, and determining an amount of creep deformation in the rotor
groove based on a difference between the measured lengths. Id. at 4.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Pross discloses monitoring at least one
test element, which is exposed to an operating load comparable to that of the
component to be monitored. Id. at 5-6. Thus, Appellant contends that Pross
does not disclose engraving a rotor as claimed. Id. at 6.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments. It is well-established that
nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981) ("The test [for obviousness] is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.").
Appellant's arguments are unavailing because they do not address the
rejection the Examiner presented. As the Examiner finds, Pross discloses
that it was known to monitor creep in a rotor of a gas turbine engine. Ans. 4;
4
Appeal2018-002309
Application 13/926,733
Pross ,r,r 1-2. Appellant's Specification also acknowledges this fact. Spec.
,r 5 and Figure 1 ( describing what was known in the art as to measuring
creep on a rotor groove). Given this disclosure, Appellant has failed to
explain adequately why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of
applying Telfer' s creep monitoring technique for turbine components to
specific turbine components, such as a rotor groove, and reasonably expect
this technique to provide the requisite creep monitoring to determine the
timing for replacing a rotor groove. In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) ("For obviousness under§ 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success."). Appellant's arguments are misplaced because the
Examiner is only relying on Pross for its teaching that a turbine rotor is
known to undergo creep during use that needs to be monitored. Final Act. 3;
Ans. 4. Thus, Appellant's arguments do not point to Examiner error.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
1, 3-9, 12-16, and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) (Rejections I and II) for
the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
DECISION
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 12-16, and 18-
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5