2020005559 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2021)

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 12, 2021

2020005559 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2021)

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. 15/115,765 08/01/2016 Edward J. Gallagher 67097-2870PUS7; 76143US19 5859 54549 7590 04/12/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER SEHN, MICHAEL L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/12/2021 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 2020-005559 Application 15/115,765 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, 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 1–18, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 2020-005559 Application 15/115,765 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed “to airfoil axial leading and trailing axial positions, for example, a gas turbine engine compressor.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A compressor airfoil of a turbine engine having a geared architecture, the airfoil comprising: pressure and suction sides extending in a radial direction from a 0% span position to a 100% span position to provide a contour that extends from a leading edge generally aftward in a chord-wise direction to a trailing edge, wherein the airfoil has a relationship between an axial leading edge position and span position that defines a curve with a negative slope from 90% span to 100% span, the negative slope corresponding to a forward- leaning leading edge. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Wadia US 5,167,489 Dec. 1, 1992 Wadia ’983 US 6,195,983 B1 Mar. 6, 2001 Schwarz US 2013/0192191 A1 Aug. 1, 2013 REJECTION Claims 1–3and 6–15 stand rejected under 35 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz and Wadia. Final Act. 4 Claims 4, 5 and 16–18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Wadia, and Wadia ’983. Final Act. 7. Appeal 2020-005559 Application 15/115,765 3 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–3, 6–15 103 Schwarz, Wadia 4, 5, 16–18 103 Schwarz, Wadia, Wadia 983 OPINION Obviousness The Examiner finds that “Wadia teaches a compressor airfoil (Figure 1, No. 12) having a relationship between an axial leading edge (28) position and span position that defines a curve with a negative slope from 90% span to 100% span, the negative slope corresponding to a forward-leaning leading edge.” Final Act. 5. Appellant responds that the Examiner’s findings rely upon “aerodynamic sweep, which is dependent on a velocity vector, in a manner that actually distinguishes sweep from the claimed axial leading edge position.” Reply Br. 1. Appellant also asserts that “the axial aft- leaning or forward-leaning portion recited in the claims are the physical, geometrical location of the leading or trailing edge, which is different than [Wadia] ’489’s aerodynamic sweep.” Id. The Examiner states that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art knows that it is common for a forward swept blade to have a leading edge that is also forward swept, as shown by the contrast of Wadia’s forward swept leading edge with a conventional blade profile, as disclosed in element 44 of Wadia, which discloses a leading edge that is not forward leaning.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains that “[t]he leading edge being forward swept in Wadia indicates the leading edge corresponding to a curve of the axial leading edge position and the span position having a negative slope.” Id. Although Appellant points out that the Examiner’s findings all rely on forward sweep as disclosed in Wadia, Appellant does not adequately explain Appeal 2020-005559 Application 15/115,765 4 why, in this particular instance, aerodynamic sweep is not the same as what is claimed. Appellant directs us to alleged inconsistencies between Figures 1 and 3 of Wadia, alleging that Figure 3 contradicts what is shown in Figure 1. Figure 3, however, is a cross-sectional view of what is shown in Figure 2 taken in the a-r plane, and Appellant fails to show how a different configuration of the cross-section contradicts what is plainly shown in Figure 1. See Wadia col. 2, ll. 22–24. Appellant argues that Wadia discloses “[a] blade surface disposed perpendicularly to the incoming axisymmetric stramsurface [40] has a sweep angle of 0°,” and that “[a] skilled worker needs to know the physical location of at least the streamsurface to determine the physical axial leading edge position.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Wadia col. 3, ll. 33–35). The Examiner, however, points out that “Wadia discloses that the blade (and its associated leading and trailing edges) comprise a sweep angle ‘S’, and the sweep angle determines an axial leading edge position of the blade.” Ans. 4 (citing Wadia Figure 1 and col. 4, ll. 54–60). The Examiner further finds that the “sweep angle is not the angle ‘φ’ in Figure 3, but rather the angle ‘S’ in Figure 1.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also points out that Wadia contrasts its “forward swept leading edge with a conventional blade profile, as disclosed in element 44 of Wadia, which discloses a leading edge that is not forward leaning.” Ans. 4. Given that Appellant does not address the Examiner’s argument with regard to the angle S and that Wadia specifically shows its leading edge in contrast with a conventional blade that does not have a forward swept leading edge, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection. We also are not persuaded that Wadia’s Figures 1 and 3 are in conflict, we merely note that they show Appeal 2020-005559 Application 15/115,765 5 different views with Figure 3 being a cross-sectional view, taken in in the “a-r” plane depicted in Figure 2, and that they are not intended to show the same angles. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. More specifically, DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6–15 103 Schwarz, Wadia 1–3, 6–15 4, 5, 16–18 103 Schwarz, Wadia, Wadia 983 4, 5, 16–18 Overall Outcome 1–18 AFFIRMED