UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 30, 20202020001825 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/116,000 08/02/2016 Edward J. Gallagher 67097-2870PUS11;76143US20 9372 54549 7590 10/30/2020 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2020 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 EDWARD J. GALLAGHER, LISA I. BRILLIANT, JOSEPH C. STRACCIA, STANLEY J. BALAMUCKI, MARK A. STEPHENS, and KATE HUDON Appeal 2020-001825 Application 15/116,000 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–13, and 15–18, which constitute all 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “United Technologies Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001825 Application 15/116,000 2 the claims pending in this application. See Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to gas turbine engine airfoils. More particularly, the disclosure relates to airfoil leading and trailing edge tangential position in, for example, a gas turbine engine compressor.” Spec. ¶ 2. Apparatus claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A compressor airfoil for a turbine engine having a geared architecture comprising: pressure and suction sides extending in a radial direction from a 0% span position to a 100% span position, wherein the airfoil has a relationship between a tangential trailing edge position relative to a reference point that is a tangential center of a root of the airfoil, and span position that defines a curve with a negative slope from 90% span to 100% span, the negative slope corresponding to a pressure side-leaning trailing edge, the tangential trailing edge position relative to the reference point has a positive slope from 0% span position to 60% span position. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Rosen US 3,747,343 July 24, 1973 Schilling US 2008/0120839 A1 May 29, 2008 Morin et al. (“Morin”) US 8,246,292 B1 Aug. 21, 2012 Breeze-Stringfellow et al. (“Breeze”) US 2012/0243975 A1 Sept. 27, 2012 Appeal 2020-001825 Application 15/116,000 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Breeze. Claims 7–9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morin, Breeze, and Rosen. Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Breeze. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morin, Breeze, Rosen, and Schilling. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 as anticipated by Breeze Appellant argues all these claims (i.e., claims 1, 3, 4, and 6) together. See Appeal Br. 3–6. We select independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims (i.e., dependent claims 3, 4, and 6) standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 1 is directed towards an airfoil of a turbine engine, and more specifically, “wherein the airfoil has a relationship between a tangential trailing edge position . . . and span position.” Claim 1 further recites that this relationship “defines a curve with a negative slope . . . the negative slope corresponding to a pressure side-leaning trailing edge.” Appellant disagrees that Breeze anticipates claim 1 contending that claim 1 recites a “tangential trailing edge position” whereas “Breeze discloses [a] dihedral, which is an angle.” Appeal Br. 3. “Obviously a position and an angle are different characteristics.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant provides support stating how “dihedral” is understood by those skilled in the Appeal 2020-001825 Application 15/116,000 4 art. See Appeal Br. 4. Appellant’s assertion relies on a reference that appears to be the same reference as that cited by Breeze when Breeze itself defines “dihedral angle.” Compare Appellant’s reference to “Smith Jr., Leroy H., and Yeh, Hsuan ‘Sweep and Dihedral Effects in Axial-Flow Turbomachinery[,]’ J. Basic Eng. Vol. 85 Iss. 3, pp. 401–414 (Sep[t]. 1, 1963)” (Appeal Br. 4) with Breeze’s reference to “Leroy H. Smith, JR. et al, ‘Sweep and Dihedral Effects in Axial-Flow Turbomachinery’, Transaction of the ASME, September, 1963” (Breeze ¶ 27). Regardless, Appellant’s reference to such a source for the meaning of Breeze’s “dihedral angle” is not needed because Breeze itself clearly provides the meaning of this term, i.e., “[a] dihedral angle, as used herein, is shown as angle ‘B’ in FIG. 2.” Breeze ¶ 27 (after referencing Smith et al. above). In any event, Appellant is correct that claim 1 employs the term “position” while Breeze employs the term “dihedral angle.” See Appeal Br. 3; Breeze generally. However, both Appellant’s “position” and Breeze’s “angle” impart a direction, tilt, or orientation of the blade surface at that given location along the blade’s trailing edge.2 See Spec. Figs. 3–5; Breeze Figs. 2–4. Further, even assuming arguendo there is a difference between Appellant’s “position” and Breeze’s “dihedral angle,”3 Appellant is not persuasive that Breeze’s teachings of a trailing edge “dihedral angle” fails to 2 We note that claim 1 recites a “position relative to a reference point” so it is clear that claim 1 uses “position” to mean more than just a certain location on the blade, but also the orientation or inclination of that blade location. See Spec. ¶ 29 (describing Figure 4 as also “depicting directional indicators”). 3 “The Examiner attempts to reduce ‘dihedral’ simply to a position of the trailing edge, which it is not.” Appeal Br. 5. Appeal 2020-001825 Application 15/116,000 5 also encompass a specific location of that angle along the blade’s trailing edge, such identified location thus being suitable for correlation with Appellant’s “position.” See Ans. 4, 5. Appellant also contends that Breeze’s usage of “dihedral angle” is faulty because “[i]n order for the Examiner to determine the trailing[] edge position from the trailing edge dihedral, the streamwise surface must also be giv[en] in Breeze,” and “[i]t is not.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 1. However, Appellant seems to fail to realize that both Breeze and Appellant rely on the same source (Smith, et al.) to define this term. See above. Thus, Breeze’s usage, by definition, entails knowledge of the streamwise surface. On the other hand, if Breeze’s usage of this term is incorrect as Appellant appears to argue, then Appellant’s usage must likewise be incorrect since both Breeze and Appellant employ the same definition. Accordingly, in view of the above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in relying on Breeze’s relationship between a trailing edge dihedral angle and span position. See Final Act. 2 (referencing Breeze Fig. 4). Claim 1 further recites a relationship “that defines a curve with a negative slope from 90% span to 100% span.” As noted above, claim 1 recites, “the negative slope corresponding to a pressure side-leaning trailing edge.” See also Spec. ¶ 45 (“a negative slope leans toward the pressure side 72”). Breeze also discusses an airfoil “shape that curls significantly towards the pressure side 5 of the airfoil.” Breeze ¶ 29; see also Ans. 5 (referencing Breeze Fig. 4). Breeze likewise characterizes this curling or leaning towards a pressure side of the blade in “negative” terms. Breeze ¶ 29. Thus, claim 1 and Breeze are similar in that they both characterize curling or leaning Appeal 2020-001825 Application 15/116,000 6 towards a pressure side of the blade by using “negative” terminology. This is to distinguish leaning in the opposite direct (i.e., toward the suction side) which employs “positive” terminology. See Spec. ¶ 45 (“[a] positive slope leans toward the suction side 74”); Breeze ¶ 28 (“A positive dihedral is one that would have a convex shape for the pressure side 5 of the airfoil 10.”). Regardless of the above similarity, Appellant appears to imply that the Examiner relied on a theory of inherency to reject these claims when, in fact, Breeze expressly discloses such similarity. See Reply Br. 1 (“The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.”). Furthermore, the above distinction between “negative” and “positive” orientation is important because Appellant argues that “Figure 4 of Breeze does not disclose ‘a curve with a negative slope from 90% span to 100% span.’” Appeal Br. 5. However, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Figure 4 of Breeze clearly depicts a “negative” value for the angle at this 90–100% span range. See also Breeze ¶ 29. Appellant focuses upon a part of Figure 4 where the inclination changes (see Appeal Br. 5, 6), but as the Examiner points out, “the circled portion is actually indicating [] how steeply negative the slope is,” not that the trailing angle is in the “positive” territory of Figure 4 of Breeze. Ans. 7. The same can be said for Appellant’s argument that Breeze does not disclose “a positive slope from 0% span position to 60% span position.” Appeal Br. 6. As depicted in Figure 4 of Breeze, the 0–60% span position of Breeze’s trailing edge is clearly depicted in the “positive” category. See also Ans. 5 (“[t]he details of this curve are represented by Figure 4 which shows that the Positive slope occurs from 0% span to about 68% span”). Again, as Appeal 2020-001825 Application 15/116,000 7 per the Examiner, “[w]hat the circled portion is actually indicating [is] how steeply positive the slope is.” Ans. 8. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Breeze. We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. The rejections of: (a) claims 7–9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18 as unpatentable over Morin, Breeze, and Rosen; (b) claims 5 and 17 as unpatentable over Breeze; and, (c) claim 10 as unpatentable over Morin, Breeze, Rosen, and Schilling Appellant does not separately argue the above rejections, but instead relies on the aforesaid arguments presented with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3–6. Appellant does not address these additional references explaining that “all rejections are based upon Breeze.” Appeal Br. 3. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 7–13, and 15–18. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6 102(b) Breeze 1, 3, 4, 6 7–9, 11–13, 15, 16, 18 103(a) Morin, Breeze, Rosen 7–9, 11–13, 15, 16, 18 5, 17 103(a) Breeze 5, 17 10 103(a) Morin, Breeze, Rosen, Schilling 10 Overall Outcome 1, 3–13, 15– 18 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). Appeal 2020-001825 Application 15/116,000 8 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation