Christopher S. Mckaveney et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

13241756 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
13/241,756 09/23/2011 Christopher S. McKaveney 58874US01;
67097-1559PUS1
4918
54549 7590 01/03/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
ADJAGBE, MAXIME M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 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 CHRISTOPHER S. MCKAVENEY and
LETIAN WANG
__________

Appeal 2019-001445
Application 13/241,756
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–14. 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 2019-001445
Application 13/241,756

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A fan blade comprising:
a main body extending between a leading edge and a
trailing edge, and having channels formed into said main body
from at least one open side to an inner side with a plurality of ribs
extending across the main body intermediate the channels, the
fan blade having an airfoil extending radially outwardly from a
radially inner end; and
said ribs having a thickness defined as measured generally
from said leading edge toward said trailing edge, with a
thickness of at least one said ribs being formed to be generally
thicker adjacent a rib radially inner end, and becoming thinner
moving in a radially outward direction.

THE REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description.
II. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Stevenson (US 6,364,616 B1; issued Apr. 2, 2002).
III. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Schilling (US 6,033,186; issued Mar. 7, 2000).
IV. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stevenson.

2 The Examiner’s objection to the drawings is a petitionable, not appealable,
matter (see Final Act. 2–3; see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.181; Ex Parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1077–78 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
Appeal 2019-001445
Application 13/241,756

3
V. Claims 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stevenson and Bochiechio (US 2010/0247322 A1,
published Sept. 30, 2010).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Written Description
Appellant does not present arguments directed to this rejection, and
therefore, any such arguments have been waived, and we summarily affirm
the Examiner’s rejection.3 See Appeal Br. 3–5; see also Ans. 3.

Rejection II – Anticipation by Stevenson
Appellant appears to argue claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13 as a group.
Appeal Br. 2–5. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 6,
7, 9, 10, and 13 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Stevenson discloses the fan blade of claim 1
including, inter alia, channels (i.e., cells 34c) and ribs 36 having a thickness
defined as measured generally from a leading edge toward a trailing edge,
with a thickness of at least one of the ribs being formed to be generally
thicker adjacent to a rib radially inner end, and becoming thinner moving in
a radially outward direction. Final Act. 4 (citing Stevenson Fig. 1).

3 We note that in the Reply Brief, Appellant states that “[a] worker of ordinary
skill in the art would read the word ‘thinner’ as being --thicker--,” because “a
worker of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the typographical error that
Appellant sought to correct with the prior amendment” (which was not entered
by the Examiner). Reply Br. 3. However, these statements are not responsive
to the rejection. We also note that the entry and non-entry of Amendments is
not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.181.
Appeal 2019-001445
Application 13/241,756

4
Appellant argues that “what is actually shown in Stevenson are
enlarged pockets within a blade with intermediate ribs which are generally
of a single thickness along the portion separating the pockets” and that
“[t]hese features merge when they are at the end of the pockets, but then
they a[r]e no longer ribs with ‘intermediate’ channels.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. In particular, Appellant’s
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Figure 1
of Stevenson generally depicts ribs 36 “thicker near the root of the blade.”
Ans. 2. Although patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale
cannot be relied upon to define precise proportions of elements if the
specification is completely silent on the issue, that does not mean “that
things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455
F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972); see also Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia
Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Further, claim 1 does not
preclude a rib from not having intermediate channels, and “limitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) see also In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . .
they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”).
Appellant also argues that “there is no disclosure of any dimension or
ratio between the ‘thickness’ of the ribs” and “[a]s such, claim 1 is not
properly rejected by the reference.” Appeal Br. 3. Again, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument, because the Examiner is not relying on
the depiction of ribs 36 in Stevenson’s Figure 1 for a particular dimension or
ratio of the thickness of the ribs. See In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914
(CCPA 1979) (“[A] drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the
Appeal 2019-001445
Application 13/241,756

5
claims of a utility patent application even though the feature shown in the
drawing was unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference
patent.”); see also Ans. 2 (explaining that the After-Final Amendment filed
February 23, 2015, attempting to add the subject matter of claim 2 to claim
1, was not entered).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13 all therewith, as being anticipated by Stevenson.

Rejection III – Anticipation by Schilling
Appellant does not present arguments directed to this rejection, and
therefore, any such arguments have been waived, and we summarily affirm
the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal Br. 3–5.

Rejection IV – Obviousness over Stevenson
The Examiner finds that although Stevenson discloses that ribs 36
“are thicker near the root of the blade,” as required by claim 1, Stevenson
does not disclose the specific ratio of thickness recited in claim 2, which
depends from claim 1. Final Act. 6; see Appeal Br., Claims App. 2 (claim 2,
in relevant part: “wherein a ratio of a thickness of said at least one rib
selected near the rib radially inner end compared to a thickness selected near
a radially outer end is between 1.1 and 8”); see also Ans. 2 (relying on
Stevenson’s Figure 1 for depicting rib 36 “thicker near the root of the
blade”). The Examiner finds that it is known in the art of turbine fan blades
that “the thickness ratio of the rib” depends on “multiple factors,” including
“stress in the blade” and “[the] overall weight of the blade,” and also that it
is known in the art that a blade may be strengthened at the rib radially inner
Appeal 2019-001445
Application 13/241,756

6
end as compared to the thickness of the blade near the radially outer end, and
to do so because the blade’s root “experiences the most stress.” Ans. 3.
The Examiner concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
have used the claimed ratio as a design choice in order to strengthen the root
portion of the blade while reducing the overall weight of the blade.” Ans. 3;
see also Final Act. 6 (reasoning that it would have been an obvious matter of
design choice to modify Stevenson’s rib according to the claimed ratio of
claim 2 to strengthen the blade at the root). The Examiner further finds that
Appellant’s Specification “does not explain why the claimed ratio is so
critical to the invention.” Ans. 3 (citing Spec. ¶ 28 (for merely suggesting
that “the ratio may differ[] across several ribs”).
Appellant argues that “the particular ratio is not a ‘design choice’ but
rather speaks to the potential amount of variation between the thicknesses at
the two locations,” and in particular, “to the size and shape of the claimed
structure.” Appeal Br. 3. This argument is merely a statement of the
claimed subject matter, and is therefore, unpersuasive. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating “the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art”).
Appellant also concludes that “[t]here is nothing within Stevenson
that could possibly benefit from including this ratio.” Appeal Br. 3.4

4 Appellant also states that “[t]he Examiner did not apply art to claim 12,
but appears to reject the claim in the Advisory Action” and that “[i]t is
assumed the rejection would track the rejection of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 3.
However, claim 12 is not rejected over the cited prior art. See Final Act. 2–
Appeal 2019-001445
Application 13/241,756

7
However, Appellant’s argument does not address the benefits explained by
the Examiner supra (i.e., blade strength and weight). Notably, as correctly
determined by the Examiner, the Specification merely discloses that “[i]n
embodiments, a ratio of t1 to t2 may be between 1.1 and 8” and “[a]s can be
appreciated from Figure 3, the variation need not be linear as shown in
Figure 4, and may be different across the several ribs,” but does not provide
any explanation regarding benefits of the claimed ratio, nor does the
Specification discuss its criticality. Spec. ¶ 28. In this regard, the
Examiner’s position that the claimed range of thickness ratio is an obvious
matter of design choice is consistent with cases in which reliance on such an
obviousness rationale was held to be appropriate. See Ex parte Spangler,
Appeal No. 2018-003800, at 5–6 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2019) (informative) (citing
In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965) (“Appellants have failed to
show that the [differences in the claimed invention], as compared to [the
reference], result in a difference in function or give unexpected results.”); In
re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (“Use of such a means of
electrical connection in lieu of those used in the references solves no stated
problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of
the art.”)).
Appellant further argues that “the Examiner’s statements are not
evidence or prior art.” Reply Br. 1. Appellant submits that “[a]n Examiner

8; see also Ans. 3–4 (indicating that claim 12 was only rejected as failing to
comply with the written description requirement, rather than over the cited
prior art). Nowhere in the Advisory Action mailed December 24, 2014, is it
indicated that claim 12 is rejected over the cited prior art. See Adv. Act.
(dated Dec. 24, 2014).
Appeal 2019-001445
Application 13/241,756

8
must provide an explicit and clear explanation why an ordinary skilled
artisan would have recognized the missing element was an available option
for use in the claimed manner,” concluding that the Examiner improperly
relied on hindsight. Id. 2 (citation omitted).
Stevenson discloses having “pockets [] for reducing weight” and ribs
“for maximizing the remaining stiffness and bending moment of inertia of
the airfoil.” Stevenson 1:57–65. Stevenson also recognizes that “[t]he ribs
are [] subject to local stress concentration during operation.” Id. at 2:2–4;
see also id. at 1:9–11. Stevenson further discloses that “since the ribs 36
themselves are integral portions of the metal airfoil, they provide structural
integrity of the airfoil itself and carry substantial loads during operation.”
Id. at 5:3–5, 11–14. Given Stevenson’s disclosure of a thickness of at least
one of the ribs being formed to be generally thicker adjacent to a rib radially
inner end and becoming thinner moving in a radially outward direction
(claim 1, Rejection II supra), and Stevenson’s teachings regarding the
functions of the ribs, we determine that, contrary to Appellant’s argument,
the Examiner provided a clear explanation as to why it would have been
obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have arrived at the claimed ratio.
“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Telefex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 as being
obvious over Stevenson.

Appeal 2019-001445
Application 13/241,756

9
Rejection IV – Obviousness over Stevenson and Bochiechio
Appellant does not present arguments directed to this rejection, and
therefore, any such arguments have been waived, and we summarily affirm
the Examiner’s rejection. See Appeal Br. 3–5.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11, 12, 14 112, first
paragraph 
Written
Description
11, 12, 14
1, 6, 7, 9,
10, 13
102(b)  Stevenson 1, 6, 7, 9,
10, 13

1, 3, 4, 13 102(b) Schilling 1, 3, 4, 13
2 103(a) Stevenson 2
5, 8 103(a) Stevenson,
Bochiechio
5, 8
Overall
Outcome
1–14

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED