Ex Parte Aiello et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2018

13314121 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/314,121 12/07/2011 Nicholas Aiello
54549 7590 04/13/2018
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.
58828US01;
67097-1618PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
6319
EXAMINER
WHITE, ALEXANDER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2018 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 NICHOLAS AIELLO and JAMES COSBY
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
According to Appellants, their "disclosure relates to a tangential
compressor or turbine rotor having relief features formed on one of the two
rails in the rotor and load slots formed on the other of the two rails in the
rotor." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 11, and 17 are the independent claims on
appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A turbomachine rotor assembly comprising:
a pair of spaced rails including a first rail and a second
rail opposing the first rail, the pair of spaced rails extending
around a cylindrical surface to define a rotor hub, the pair of
spaced rails defining a space for receiving blades;
a plurality of load slots formed in the first rail; and
a surface of the second rail formed with a relief feature,
wherein one of the plurality of load slots and the relief feature
are utilized to move at least one of the blades into the space.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
2 In the Final Office Action mailed May 2, 2016 ("Final Action"), the
Examiner rejects claim 21 as indefinite, based on the following: "[ c ]laim 21
recites ... 'is recessed relative to surfaces the relief feature."' . . . [It is not
clear] what surfaces applicant is particularly citing .... For the purposes of
examination, the [E]xaminer will interpret the limitation to read 'is recessed
relative to surfaces adjacent the relief feature."' Final Action 6. In the
Advisory Action mailed June 21, 2016 ("Advisory Action"), the Examiner
indicates entry of Appellants' Amendment After Final ("Amendment After
Final") filed May 31, 2016. Advisory Action 1. Inasmuch as the
Amendment After Final amends claim 21 in accordance with the Examiner's
interpretation of the claim (see Amendment After Final 5), notwithstanding
that the Examiner does not expressly indicate withdrawal of claim 21 's
indefiniteness rejection (see, e.g., Answer 2, 14 (where the Examiner
indicates grounds of rejection which are maintained, but does refer to the
indefiniteness rejection)), we understand the rejection to be withdrawn.
2
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
I. claims 1-10 and 17-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Aiello (US 2011/0116933 Al, pub. May 19, 2011);
II. claims 1-3, 6-10, and 17-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Pask (US 4,451,204, iss. May 29, 1984);
III. claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pask and Yvon Goga (US 2001/0055527 Al, pub. Dec. 27,
2001);
IV. claims 11-16 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Aiello and Miura (US 4,432,697, iss. Feb. 21, 1984);
V. claims 11-13, 16, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pask and Miura; and
VI. claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pask, Miura, and Yvon Goga.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, as anticipated by Aiello, is in error because "[t]he Examiner has not
shown a teaching in Aiello of' "[ c ]laim 1 [' s] rec it[ ation of] 'a surface of the
second rail formed with a relief feature."' Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis omitted);
see also id. at 4---6. Based on our review of the record, including Appellants'
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, Appellants do not persuade us of error. Thus,
we sustain the rejection.
With reference to Aiello' s Figure 2B, an annotated version of which
the Examiner includes on page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner finds that the
3
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
space formed in a portion of forward rail 30, into which blade 22's forward
ear 28 is received, teaches the claimed relief feature. See, e.g., Answer 4--5;
see, e.g., Final Action 7. More specifically, the Examiner finds that the
formation of this space in forward rail 30's "planar surface" discloses the
claimed "relief feature" that is formed in a "surface of the second rail." See,
e.g., Answer 5. Restated, according to the Examiner, Aiello' s planar surface
of forward rail 30 discloses the claimed "surface of the second rail," and the
fact that the space is formed in Aiello's forward rail 30 discloses the claim
recitation of "a surface of the second rail [is] formed with a relief feature."
The Examiner adequately supports the finding that Aiello teaches all the
recitations of the claim.
Conversely, although we have reviewed Appellants' arguments (see
Appeal Br. 4---6), Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs.
More specifically, Appellants do not present facts or a technical line of
reasoning sufficient to persuade us that the Examiner's rejection is based on
anything other than a broad, reasonable, interpretation of the claim. By way
of example, Appellants do not persuade us, even assuming the claim requires
that the "relief feature ... facilitates movement of the [blade's] root
section ... , and particularly the [blade's] rear ear ... , through the load
slot," that
the skilled person would not interpret space under . . . rail 3 0 in
Aiello from teaching a rail "formed with a relief feature" as is
claimed. The space under . . . rail 30 does not facilitate
movement of any rear ear in Aiello through a load slot. The
alleged ear in Aiello would have already passed through the
4
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
alleged load slot by the time the alleged ear enters the spaced
under ... rail 3 0.
Id. More specifically, it is not clear to us that "[t]he space under ... rail 30
[fails to] facilitate movement of any rear ear in Aiello through a load slot."
Dependent claims 2-10, 20, and 21
Claims 2-10, 20, and 21 depend from claim 1. Appellants do not
argue separately against the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-10 and 20, as
anticipated by Aiello. Thus, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3-
10 and 20.
With respect to claim 2, Appellants do not persuade us (Appeal Br. 6-
7) that the Examiner's errs in determining that Aiello' s planar surface of
forward rail 30 is a radially-inward facing surface, or that the Examiner errs
in determining that the opening in Aiello's forward rail 30 is formed within a
radially-inward facing surface of the second rail (Final Action 7; Answer 5-
6), as claimed. Rather, it appears that Aiello' s Figure 2B shows the argued
recitations. See Answer 5. With respect to claim 21, Appellants do not
persuade us (Appeal Br. 7) that the Examiner's errs in determining that the
opening in Aiello's planar surface of forward rail 30 is formed, to at least
some degree, on an underside of forward rail 30 (Final Action 10-11;
Answer 5---6), as claimed.
Independent claim 17, and dependent claims 18 and 19
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 17, as anticipated by Aiello, is in error because "[a]s discussed in
response to the rejection of claim 1 involving Aiello, the space beneath
Aiello's rail 30 is not a 'relief feature formed on' ... rail 30." Appeal Br. 7
5
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
(emphasis omitted). We sustain claim 17's rejection for substantially the
same reasons that we sustain claim 1 's rejection.
With respect to claim 18 that depends from claim 1 7, Appellants fail
to persuade us (Appeal Br. 7-8) that Aiello's space in forward rail 30's
"planar surface," as identified by the Examiner (Answer 5---6), is not formed
on a radially-inward facing surface, as claimed. Appellants do not argue
separately against the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 19 that
depends from claim 17. Thus, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
claims 18 and 19 based on Aiello.
Rejection II
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, as anticipated by Pask, is in error because "like the rejection
involving Aiello, the Examiner is not applying [the] broadest reasonable
interpretation to the claimed 'relief feature,' and is not interpreting the 'relief
feature' of the claims consistently with the ordinary and customary meaning
of 'relief feature."' Appeal Br. 8 (emphases omitted). For the below
reasons, however, Appellants do not persuade us of error.
With reference to Pask's Figure 1, an annotated version of which the
Examiner includes on page 7 of the Answer, the Examiner finds that a space
formed by a portion of channel 12 in disc 10, into which blade 14' s root 13
is received, teaches the claimed relief feature. See, e.g., Answer 7; see, e.g.,
Final Action 11. More specifically, the Examiner finds that the formation of
this space in channel 12 's/ disc 10 's "planar surface" discloses the claimed
"relief feature" that is formed in a "surface of the second rail." See, e.g.,
Answer 7. Restated, according to the Examiner, Pask's "planar surface" of
6
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
channel 12/disc 10 discloses the claimed "surface of the second rail," and the
fact that the space is formed in Pask' s channel 12/ disc 10 discloses the claim
recitation of "a surface of the second rail [is] formed with a relief feature."
The Examiner adequately supports the finding that Pask teaches all the
recitations of the claim.
Although we have reviewed Appellants' arguments (see Appeal
Br. 8), Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs. More
specifically, for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to the
Rejection I, Appellants do not present facts or a technical line of reasoning
sufficient to persuade us that the Examiner's rejection is based on anything
other than a broad, reasonable, interpretation of the claim.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-10, 20, and 21
Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 20, and 21 depend from claim 1. Appellants do not
argue separately against the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 6-10, and 20,
as anticipated by Pask. Thus, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3,
6-10, and 20.
With respect to claim 2, Appellants fail to persuade us (Appeal Br. 8-
9) that the Examiner's errs in determining that Pask's "planar surface" of
channel 12/disc 10 is a radially-inward facing surface, and fail to persuade
us that the space formed by a portion of channel 12/disc 10 is within a
radially-inward facing surface of the second rail (Final Action 11;
Answer 7), as recited in the claim. Rather, it appears that Pask's Figure 1
shows the argued claim recitations. See Answer 7. With respect to
claim 21, Appellants do not persuade us (Appeal Br. 9) that the Examiner's
errs in determining that the space formed in Pask' s "planar surface" of
7
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
channel 12/disc 10 is formed, to at least some degree, on a rail underside
(Final Action 14; Answer 7), as claimed.
Independent claim 17, and dependent claims 18 and 19
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 17, as anticipated by Pask, is in error because "[a ]s discussed in
response to the rejection of claim 1 involving Aiello, the space beneath
Pask's alleged rail is not a 'relief feature formed on' the rail." Appeal Br. 9
(emphases omitted). We sustain claim 17' s rejection for substantially the
same reasons we sustain claim 1 's rejection based on Aiello.
With respect to claim 18 that depends from claim 1 7, Appellants fail
to persuade us (id. at 9-10) that the space formed in Pask's "planar surface"
of channel 12/disc 10 (Answer 7-8), is not formed on a radially-inward
facing surface, as claimed. Appellants do not argue separately against the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 19 that depends from claim 17.
Thus, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 18 and 19 based on
Pask.
Rejection III
Appellants do not argue separately against the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 5 that depend from claim 1. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5.
Rejection IV
Independent claim 11, and dependent claims 12-16
Appellants argue that the rejection of independent claim 11 is in error
because "[t]he rejection fails to articulate a legally sufficient reason for
modifying Aiello" based on Miura. Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 10-12.
Based on our review of the record, the Examiner does not support
8
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
adequately the determination that it would have been obvious to combine
Aiello and Miura as the Examiner proposes. Thus, we do not sustain
claim 11 's rejection based on Aiello and Miura.
More specifically, Appellants indicate that the Examiner finds that
Aiello does not disclose a plurality of relief features formed on an underside
of a second rail and circumferentially aligned with a plurality of blade load
slots, as recited by independent claim 11. Appeal Br. 1 O; see also Final
Action 16. But, "[t]he Examiner asserts that Miura teaches this feature and
that the skilled person would modify Aiello to include this feature 'in order
to provide a rotor wherein each rotor blade may be individually mounted and
removed without requiring disassembly of the rotor."' Appeal Br. 10 (citing
Final Action 17). As still further indicated by Appellants, however,
"Aiello' s current design provide a rotor wherein each rotor blade may be
individually mounted and removed without requiring disassembly of the
rotor." Id. at 10 (citing Aiello i-fi-f 19, 21). Thus, according to Appellants,
there is no reason to modify Aiello to include Miura's relief features. Id.
at 10-11.
Based on our review of the record, the Examiner does not provide an
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning sufficient to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Notwithstanding the Examiner's further explanation
that
one of ordinary skill would be able to clearly see the benefits of
the extra space and maneuverability provided to one by the
cutouts of Miura when assembling and disassembling rotor
elements[,] and would seek to incorporate such cutouts in other
structures having similarly assembled rotor elements, such as
9
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
with the rotor blades of Aiello, in order to improve the structure
while maintaining it operability
(Answer 10-11), we agree with Appellants that this is speculation on the
part of the Examiner, which is not sufficient to support an obviousness
determination (Appeal Br. 11 ).
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 11 based on Aiello and Miura. We also do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 12-16 that depend from claim 11, which
similarly are based on Aiello and Miura.
Dependent claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 7. Above, we sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claim 17 based on Aiello. Appellants argue that
claim 22's rejection is in error because
[t]he rejection relies on ... [Miura's] cutout 11 ... as teaching
the relief feature. . . . [C]utout 11 is not formed on an underside
[as claimed]. The cutout is in an axially facing side wall (see
[Miura] col. 4, lines 60-64 ). Modifying Aiello to include
[Miura's] cutout would thus fail to teach or suggest a relief
feature "formed on an underside" as is claimed.
Appeal Br. 13. We agree with the Examiner, however, that based at least on
Miura's Figure 2, "one may reasonably consider the cutout to be formed on
an underside of the rail." Answer 12. Thus, we sustain the rejection.
Rejection V
Independent claim 11, and dependent claims 12, 13, and 16
We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11-13 and 16
based on Pask and Miura for reasons similar to the reasons we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 11 based on Aiello and Miura, supra. More
specifically, in Rejection IV, the Examiner finds that Miura, rather than
10
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
Pask, discloses a plurality of relief features formed on an underside of a
second rail and circumferentially aligned with a plurality of blade load slots,
as recited by independent claim 11 (Final Action 21 ), although "Pask' s
current design provide a rotor wherein each rotor blade may be individually
mounted and removed without requiring disassembly of the rotor" (Appeal
Br. 14 (citing Pask, col. 3, 11. 10-15). The Examiner's statements do not
provide an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning sufficient to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness, but, instead, are speculative.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (2007).
Dependent claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 7. Above, we sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claim 17 based on Pask. Appellants argue that
claim 22's rejection is in error because
[t]he rejection relies on ... [Miura's] cutout 11 ... as teaching
the relief feature. . . . [C]utout 11 is not formed on an underside
[as claimed]. The cutout is in an axially facing side wall (see
[Miura] col. 4, lines 60-64 ). Modifying Pask to include
[Miura's] cutout would thus fail to teach or suggest a relief
feature "formed on an underside" as is claimed.
Appeal Br. 13. We agree with the Examiner, however, that based at least on
Miura's Figure 2, "one may reasonably consider the cutout to be formed on
an underside of the rail." Answer 13. Thus, we sustain the rejection.
Rejection VI
Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 11. As set forth above, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 11 based on Pask and Miura.
The Examiner does not establish that Yvon Goga remedies the deficiency in
claim 11 's rejection. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 14
and 15 based on Pask, Miura, and Yvon Goga.
11
Appeal2017-003085
Application 13/314, 121
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 17-22.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12