Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2016

11853924 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111853,924 09/12/2007 Derek W. Anderson
54549 7590 06/14/2016
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
PA0005075U:67097-1217PUS 1 3942
EXAMINER
BRYANT, DAVID P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2016 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 DEREK W. ANDERSON and
KEVIN NICHOLAS SHULTIS 1
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GEIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8-16, 21-26, and 28-30. 2 Appeal Br. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellants indicate that the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appellants identify clams 8-16 and 21-29 as pending in the application
and that clam 27 has been withdrawn. Appeal Br. 2. However, the Claims
Appendix (Appeal Br. 9-11) indicates that the pending claims are 8-16 and
21-30. Claims 1-7 and 17-20 were cancelled by Amendment dated June 3,
2009 and new claims 29 and 30 were added by Amendment filed June 19,
2013. We therefore treat claim 30 as before us on appeal.
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
We AFFIRM-fN-PART.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "a method for repairing a gas
turbine engine casing compris[ing]: removing an annular portion of the
engine casing; and attaching an annular replacement portion to the engine
casing." Spec. 1. 3 Claim 10 is illustrative and recites:
10. A method for repairing gas turbine engme casmg
compnsmg:
providing a salvaged engine casing having a longitudinal
axis;
removing an annular portion of the engine casmg
perpendicularly to said longitudinal axis;
providing a replacement component including axially
extending excess material;
trimming the axially extending excess material of the
replacement component prior to attachment to form a
replacement portion; and
attaching the replacement portion to the engine casing.
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 10-14, 16, 21-26, and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trewiler (US 6,969,826 B2; iss. Nov.
29, 2005) and non-patent literature entitled "Replacing a Car Floor Panel"
(pub. Mar. 14, 2007, hereinafter "Rep").
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Trewiler, Rep, Kleinburger (US 5,739,618; iss. Apr. 14,
1998), and Swaffar (US 2004/0088988 Al; pub. May 13, 2004).
3 Appellants' Specification does not provide line or paragraph numbering
and, accordingly, reference is only made to the page number.
2
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Caldwell (US 7,546,684 B2; iss. June 16, 2009) and
Lange (US 2007/0084047 Al; pub. Apr. 19, 2007). 4
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 10-14, 16, 21-26, and 28 as Obvious over Trewiler and
Rep
The Examiner finds that Trewiler teaches several of the limitations of
independent claims 10 and 21 except for "providing an axially extending
trim portion having excess material and machining said trim portion
perpendicular to a longitudinal axis thereof prior to attachment." Final Act.
2-3. The Examiner further finds that Rep teaches these limitations in
connection with a replacement panel, including welding the replacement
panel to a component. See id. at 3. The Examiner concludes:
Id.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to provide axially
extending excess trim portion to the replacement part ofTre\~1iler
et al and to thereafter trim excess portion to allow for proper
fitment, as taught Rep, because it allows for standardized
replacement components and for the repair of a plurality of trim
portions and improved tolerances between the mating portions
between the casing (12) and the replacement portion (118) by
trimming to accommodate any variations of the casing (12) from
a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction.
The Examiner elaborates on the rejection in the Answer where the
4 Claims 29 and 30 were additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
the Final Action as unpatentable over Caldwell and Ntsama-Etoundi (US
2006/0277753 Al; pub. Dec. 14, 2006). Final Act. 7-8. That rejection was
withdrawn in the Answer and we do not address it in this Appeal. See Ans.
2.
3
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
Examiner states:
The solution proposed by this rejection is to maintain the excess
thickness of the replacement flange ( 118) [of Trewiler] and to
additionally provide excess axial length, as disclosed in Rep.
This combination allows for the replacement flange of Trewiler
to accommodate various levels of damage to the inner casing
wall (12), including damage having greater axial extension.
Ans. 3. The Examiner further determines that:
there is no disclosure in Trewiler precluding a replacement
flange (118) having axially extending excess material. Therefore
the replacement portion of Trewiler "based on" the width of the
inner casing wall does not preclude enhancing the same
replacement portion by providing excess axial material to
accommodate further (axial) variations in the casing wall
distortion.
Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that the proposed modification of Trewiler by Rep
changes the principle of operation of Trewiler. Appeal Br. 3--4. In
particular, Appellants argue that
Since Trewiler already provides for proper fitment with
the greater thickness of the face flange there is no reason to
modify Trewiler to "allow for proper fitment" by adding excess
trim material (only to remove that material to form a replacement
portion). This would change Trewiler's principle of operation.
The trimming would unnecessarily modify Trewiler since
Trewiler has already accommodated for such mismatches
without trimming. Put another way, Trewiler has already
accommodated for the benefit of proper fitment by fabricating
the replacement flange based on the wall 12, and by fabricating
the replacement flange to be greater in thickness than the wall
12.
Id. at 4.
To summarize, Appellants argue that Trewiler offers a complete
solution to a gas turbine engine casing repair problem, the Examiner's
4
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
proposed modification of which, i.e., providing excess axially extending trim
material and trimming that material, would be redundant. What Appellants
do not appreciate or do not acknowledge is that the Examiner's proposed
modification of Trewiler by Rep accommodates situations where there may
be considerable damage to the inner casing wall 12 of Trewiler in the axial
direction whereby simply providing a replacement flange with a greater
width than the inner casing wall may not effectively mend the extent of the
damage to the casing wall extending in an axial direction.
Appellants further contend that the proposed modification renders
Trewiler unsatisfactory for its intended purpose which, according to
Appellants, is providing customized rather than standardized replacement
parts. See Appeal Br. 5. However, the Examiner's proposed modification of
Trewiler with Rep does not alter the principle of operation of Trewiler but
merely supplements it. Furthermore, Appellants point to no disclosure in
Trewiler indicating that Trewiler's solution only involves the provision of
customized replacement parts. In this regard, the Examiner's stated
rationale for combining Trewiler with Rep concerning the provision of
standardized replacement parts is not foreclosed by the teachings of
Trewiler.
Appellants also argue "[t]hat a modification could be made does not
make the modification obvious." Appeal Br. 5. Here, the Examiner bases
the rejection not on the fact that the modification simply could be made.
Rather, the Examiner provides articulated reasons based on rational
underpinnings for making the modification. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In particular, the Examiner's rejection
indicates the desirability of maintaining "the excess thickness of the
5
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
replacement flange (118) [of Trewiler] and to additionally provide excess
axial length, as disclosed in Rep," in order to "accommodate various levels
of damage to the inner casing wall (12), including damage having greater
axial extension." Ans. 3. Significantly, Appellants do not disagree with the
Examiner that some axially extending damage to the casing wall 12 may be
so extensive as to require the addition of axially extending material to span
and mend the damaged area.
Appellants' arguments thus are not persuasive. Based on the record
presented, and for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 10 and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trewiler
and Rep. Appellants do not separately argue claims 11-14, 16, and 22-26,
apart from depending from claims 10 and 21. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims as unpatentable over Trewiler and Rep.
As for claim 28, the Examiner initially finds that the limitations of
that claim may be found at column 4, lines 1-8 of Trewiler. See Final Act.
4.
Appellants respond by asserting:
Trewiler expressly teaches that there is a mismatch between the
thicknesses of the faces 130 and 132. The faces 130 and 132
having mismatched thickness fail to teach radially thicknesses
that are about the same. The Examiner's interpretation of the
claimed faces being taught by faces 130 and 132 is unreasonable
and is not an interpretation that a person having skill in this art
would make.
Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner explains in response:
Trewiler provides excess thickness in the replacement
portion to preclude a situation where "the resulting wall
thickness is below the allowable range" (see col. 2 lines 1-5 ).
6
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
The "allowable range" is inherently referring to a range
acceptable for turbine operation, where the engine as a whole
being inoperable at levels below a minimum thickness, due to the
possibility of that particular component failing and shearing off
to cause further damage. Providing increased axial length to said
replacement does not affect its thickness and therefore does not
teach away from the invention of Trewiler.
Ans. 5.
Figures 3 and 4 of Trewiler indicate that the mating face of the
replacement portion is about the same thickness as the mating face of the
engine casing. Consequently, we agree we agree with the Examiner that
providing increased axial length would not affect the thickness of the
replacement portion.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 28 as
unpatentable over Trewiler and Rep.
Rejection of claims 8, 9, and 15 under as unpatentable over Trewiler, Rep,
Kleinburger. and Swaffar
Appellants do not separately argue claims 8, 9, and 15 apart from their
dependence from claim 10. Appeal Br. 6. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Trewiler, Rep, Kleinburger, and Swaffar. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Rejection of claims 29 and 30 as unpatentable over Caldwell and Lange
Claims 29 and 30 respectively depend from independent claims 10
and 21 and therefore incorporate all of the limitations thereof. Appeal Br.
11, Claims App. Related limitations of claims 10 and 21 include "trimming
the axially extending excess material of the replacement component prior to
attachment" to the engine casing (claim 10) and "trimming the trim portion
7
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
prior to attachment" to the engine casing (claim 21 ). Appeal Br. 9, 10,
Claims App. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that "Caldwell [] fail[ s] to teach providing an
axially extending trim portion having excess material and machining said
trim portion perpendicular to a longitudinal axis thereof prior to attachment."
Final Act. 6. For this teaching the Examiner turns to Lange, stating "Lange
[] teach[ es] removing a damaged portion of a turbine component, obtaining a
replacement having excess material extending axially and cutting said
replacement in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis thereof prior to
installation, thereafter welding the replacement to the component." Id. at 6-
7 (citing Lange i-fi-f 14, 20, 29, 39; Fig. 3). In regard to Lange, the Examiner
further finds:
Paragraphs [0036]-[0038] of Lange clearly state
producing a replacement portion then reworking said
replacement portion (where reworking is the genus to all metal
working processes, thereby encompassing machining
operations) and thereafter attaching replacement portion to the
component (10). It is clear from Figure 3 that the replacement
portion ( 16) has been "machined" to a smaller dimension.
Ans. 6.
Appellants argue "[p ]aragraph [0039] in Lange states that after the
replacement part has been integrated into the component part, there is a
reworking of the component part that is to be repaired." Appeal Br. 7; see
also Reply Br. 2. Appellants also assert that the Examiner's interpretation of
Figure 3 "overlooks that the trimming or machining takes place after
attachment not 'prior to attachment' as is recited in the claim." Reply Br. 2.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Paragraph 39 of Lange is as
follows:
8
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
After replacement part 16 has been integrated into component
part 10 that is to be repaired, there is a reworking of the
component part that is to be repaired. In the exemplary
embodiment illustrated in FIG. 3, during the reworking, the outer
contour of replacement part 16, that is integrated into component
part 10, is reworked. In the exemplary embodiment illustrated,
this is done by mechanical grinding. Finally, repaired
component part 10 is coated.
Figure 3 and paragraph 39 of Lange make clear that "machining" or
"reworking" (specifically grinding) of the replacement part 16 occurs after
the replacement part has been attached to component part 10. Considered
together, Figure 3 and paragraph 39 of Lange lead one of ordinary skill in
the art to the conclusion that any "trimming" of the replacement component
occurs after rather than prior to attachment of the component to the gas
turbine engine casing, which is diametrically opposite of that called for in
independent claims 10 and 21. Therefore, as Caldwell and Lange, in
combination, do not satisfy the limitations of independent claims 10 and 21,
they likewise do not and cannot satisfy the inventions recited in dependent
claims 29 and 30. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Caldwell
and Lange.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-14, 16, 21-26, and
28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trewiler and Rep.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 9, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trewiler, Rep, Kleinburger, and
Swaffar.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Caldwell and Lange.
9
Appeal2014-005900
Application 11/853,924
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
10