Ex Parte Turko et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 201613022641 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/022,641 02/08/2011 Andy Turko 54549 7590 07/26/2016 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. PA-14637U; 67097-1409US1 CONFIRMATION NO. 7109 EXAMINER BROWNSON, JEFFREY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2016 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 ANDY TURKO and TRACY A. PROPHETER-HINCKLEY Appeal2014-008760 Application 13/022,641 1 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest in this application is the assignee, United Technologies Corporation." Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2014-008760 Application 13/022,641 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1 and 13 are the only independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A turbine component comprising: a plurality of adjacent turbine subcomponents which each have a mate face secured to the mate face of an opposed turbine subcomponent; and a wedge member positioned between the mate faces of at least some of the turbine subcomponents, and a braze material between outer faces of the wedge and the mate faces of each of the at least some of the turbine subcomponents. Rejections The Appellants request our review of the following Examiner's rejections: I. Claims 1-7, 13-1 7, 21, and 22 are rejected under 3 5 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin (US 5,174,715, iss. Dec. 29, 1992) and ii.Jlen (US 1,554,614, iss. Sept. 22, 1925); II. Claims 8, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin, Allen, and Dezouche (US 2012/0128482 Al, pub. May 24, 2012); III. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin, Allen, and Dietz (US 5,261,790, iss. Nov. 16, 1993); and IV. Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin, Allen, and Warburton (US 6,330,304 Bl, iss. Dec. 11, 2001). 2 Appeal2014-008760 Application 13/022,641 ANALYSIS Rejection I Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 and 21 The Appellants contend that the Examiner's rejection suffers from impermissible hindsight. See Appeal Br. 2-3. The Appellants' contention is persuasive. The Examiner finds that Martin teaches a turbine component 10 having a plurality of adjacent turbine subcomponents 14 each having mate faces 82a, 82b that are brazed together. See Final Act. 4; see also Martin, col. 11, 11. 40-42. The Examiner acknowledges that Martin fails to teach a wedge member, but finds that "Allen teaches a wedge member (21) positioned between the mate faces of at least some of the turbine subcomponents," as required by claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing Allen, p. 2, 11. 49-51). The Examiner provides the following rationale to explain how the combined teachings of Martin and Allen result in the subject matter of independent claim 1 : At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the wedges of Allen in between the vanes of Martin, since doing so would help to further make up for stack-up tolerances (Martin, column 3, lines 51-53) by assuring the maintenance of a tight shroud (Allen, page 1, lines 11-15). Final Act. 4 (emphases added). Additionally, the Examiner acknowledges that Martin "fails to teach ... a braze material between the outer faces of the wedge and mate faces of each of the at least some of the turbine subcomponents," as required by claim 1. Id. To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner's rationale includes the following: 3 Appeal2014-008760 Application 13/022,641 Since the vanes or [sic] Martin are already joined by brazing and maintaining a tight shroud would provide for the tight joints necessary for brazing, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a braze material between the outer faces of the wedge and mate faces of each of the vanes, when adding the wedges on to the system of Martin. Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner's rationale depends on Allen's teaching of "assuring the maintenance of a tight shroud" and that teaching relies on the functionality of Allen's wedge elements. Supra. The function of Allen's wedge elements is to move relative to shroud elements 11 as a result of unequal rates of expansion of a rotor and blading. See Appeal Br. 2-3; see, e.g., Allen p. 1, 11. 48---64. However, the result of the Examiner's combination is to fix wedge elements to the outer surfaces of the mate faces of turbine subcomponents by use of brazing material. This result suggests that the functionality of a wedge element is to be fixed in place between mate faces of two turbine subcomponents. In this case, the difference between Allen's teaching and the functionality of the wedge elements as a result of the Examiner's combination is significant. And, the Examiner fails to adequately explain how the differences in functionality are not the result of impermissible hindsight. At best, the Examiner determines that the inclusion of the wedge elements would create a tight connection between Martin's turbine subcomponents. See Ans. 4. But, Martin's turbine subcomponents maintain a tight connection by brazing mate faces 82a and 82b together and the Examiner does not offer a persuasive reason why adding a wedge element within the space occupied by the brazing material would be beneficial over Martin's original tight connection. 4 Appeal2014-008760 Application 13/022,641 Further, to the extent brazing the outer surfaces of mate faces 82a and 82b together aides in Martin's object of providing a method of manufacturing a turbine nozzle for reducing or make-up for stack-up tolerances, the Examiner does not offer a persuasive reason why adding a wedge element within the space occupied by the brazing material would help to further reduce or make up for stack-up tolerances. For the foregoing reasons we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-7 and 21, as unpatentable over Martin and Allen. Independent claim 13 and dependent claims 14-17 and 22 Independent claim 13 includes language similar to the language of claim 1 and is rejected based on substantially similar findings and rationale applied with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 4, 6. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 13 and claims 14--17 and 22, which depend therefrom, for similar reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Rejections II-IV The remaining rejections based on the teachings of Martin and Allen in combination with Dezouche, Dietz, or Warburton rely on the same findings and rationale discussed above, which suffer from impermissible hindsight. As such, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claims 8, 9, and 18 as unpatentable over Martin, Allen, and Dezouche; claim 10 as unpatentable over Martin, Allen, and Dietz; and claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Martin, Allen, and Warburton. 5 Appeal2014-008760 Application 13/022,641 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation