UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2020

2020001825 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2020)

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