Ex Parte Bales et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

13625956 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/625,956 09/25/2012 Daniel A. Bales
54549 7590 12/03/2018
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
67097-2041PUS1;62159US01 1038
EXAMINER
WOLCOTT, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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 DANIEL A. BALES, and THOMAS J. W ATSON 1
Appeal2018-003479
Application 13/625,956
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, and 15-22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest
(Appeal Br. 1) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2018-003479
Application 13/625,956
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A fan blade comprising:
first and second titanium alloy portions are secured to
one another with an aluminum alloy braze that contains
manganese, wherein the first titanium alloy portion includes
ribs, a root, and at least a portion of an exterior airfoil contour
of the fan blade, the second titanium alloy portion includes
another portion of the exterior airfoil contour, and the ribs are
secured to the second titanium alloy portion with the aluminum
alloy braze.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 17, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Porter (US 5,063,662, iss. Nov. 12, 1991),
Eylon (US 5,429,877, iss. July 4, 1995), and Matsen (US 6,884,976 B2, iss.
Apr. 26, 2005).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Porter, Eylon, Matsen, and Wiggs (US 5,269,058, iss. Dec. 14, 1993).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Porter, Eylon, Matsen, and Neal (US 4,217,190, iss.
Aug. 12, 1980).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Porter, Eylon, Matsen, and Kray (US 2012/0021243 Al, pub. Jan. 26, 2012).
2
Appeal2018-003479
Application 13/625,956
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 17, 18, and 20-22
Unpatentable Over Porter, Eylon, and Matsen
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 17, 18, and 20-22 as a group.
We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2, 4, 5, 7-11, and 15-22
standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Porter teaches a fan blade
with first titanium alloy portion 10 with ribs 40 secured to second titanium
alloy portion 54 by diffusion bonding, but without using an aluminum alloy
braze containing manganese as claimed. Final Act. 4 ( citing Porter 1 :9-11,
3:22-25, Fig. 7). The Examiner relies on Eylon to teach fan blade 10 with
first and second titanium alloy portions 16, 1 7 that are diffusion bonded,
brazed, electron beam welded, or otherwise assembled along an interface
defined by respective contact surfaces 18, 19 of each portion 16, 1 7. Id. at
4--5 (citing Eylon 2:40-45, Fig. 2). The Examiner relies on Matsen to teach
a joining of first and second titanium alloy airfoils with an aluminum alloy
braze containing manganese. Id. at 5 (citing Matsen 3:48-58, 7:59---64).
Appellant argues that modifying Porter with Eylon's teachings would
not have been obvious because Porter's airfoil has ribs, and Eylon criticizes
stiffening ribs as expensive and difficult to manufacture. Appeal Br. 5---6.
Appellant argues that a skilled artisan considering Eylon as a whole would
have reason to doubt that Eylon's teachings would be functional or
compatible with an airfoil having ribs because Eylon never mentions ribs as
a component of any embodiment of the invention that it claims. Id. at 6-7.
Appellant thus argues that a skilled artisan would have been discouraged
from applying Eylon's teaching to airfoils having ribs. Reply Br. 2.
3
Appeal2018-003479
Application 13/625,956
Eylon teaches that conventional structures for fan blades, compressor
blades, and vanes include hollow titanium structures with internal stiffening
ribs machined into the inner surfaces of two bonded segments that form the
structure. Eylon, 1 :24--31. Porter teaches this conventional configuration of
plural grooves 32-37 machined into a turbine blade half to form ribs (lands
40). Porter, 4:3-10, Figs. 1 (step 6), 5 (grooves 32-37 machined into blank).
Thus, the Examiner relies on Porter, not Eylon, to teach reinforcing ribs
formed in hollow titanium blade portions. See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3.
Porter also teaches to secure the two blade halves to one another by
diffusion bonding first blade half 10 to second blade half 54. Porter, 4:34--
57, Figs. 1 (step 7), 7 (illustrating diffusion bonding process). The Examiner
relies on Eylon to teach that titanium blade segments 16, 17 (like those of
Porter) may be diffusion bonded, brazed, electron beam welded or otherwise
assembled along an interface defined by respective contacting surfaces 18,
19 of each segment 16, 17. Eylon, 2 :40-45; Final Act. 5. The Examiner
reasons that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Eylon's teaching
to substitute brazing for diffusion bonding of Porter to achieve a predictable
result of joining the two titanium portions together. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3; see
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The Examiner only
relies on Eylon's teaching that diffusion bonding and brazing are two of the
acceptable ways to secure titanium blade portions to one another. Ans. 3.
Eylon also teaches how to improve the stiffness of hollow titanium
blade portions without using ribs. Eylon bonds a composite titanium matrix
layer 20 to inner surfaces of the blades to provide high stiffness and light
weight. Eylon, 1:36-55, 2:46-3:4. Layer 20 may be applied by vacuum hot
pressing, hot isostatic pressing, or plasma spray deposition. Id. at 3:5-8.
4
Appeal2018-003479
Application 13/625,956
Appellant is correct that Eylon touts the benefits of composite layer
20 as compared to ribs, which Eylon describes as light weight but expensive,
difficult to manufacture, and relatively low in stiffness. Id. at 1 :32-35. The
Examiner is correct, however, that Eylon's expressed preference for using a
composite titanium matrix layer 20 (in lieu of ribs) to stiffen titanium blade
portions before joining the portions together does not criticize, discredit, or
discourage the use of brazing as a way to join the contact surfaces 18, 19 of
each blade portion 16, 17 as claimed. Ans. 3. Nor does Appellant dispute
this finding or reasoning. Appeal Br. 7 ("Appellant contends that 'Eylon,
considered in its entirety, teaches away from ribs,' not brazing.").
The Examiner therefore had a sound basis to determine that a skilled
artisan would have been motivated to secure Porter's blade sections 10, 54
together by brazing rather than diffusion bonding as a simple substitution
based on Eylon's teaching that brazing is an alternative, acceptable way to
bond two reinforced, hollow titanium blade sections together. Final Act. 5;
Ans. 3 (Eylon does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of
any method of joining as applied to ribs.).
We are not persuaded that Eylon's teachings would have discouraged
a skilled artisan from connecting Porter's blade portions 10, 54 by brazing
merely because Eylon does not use ribs with such titanium blade portions.
Porter connects titanium blade portions 10, 54 and ribs by diffusion bonding.
Porter, 4:34--5:11, Figs. 7, 8. The Examiner proposes to substitute brazing
for diffusion bonding, as Eylon teaches, for predictable results. We are not
persuaded by Appellant's attorney arguments that the substitutability of
brazing for diffusion bonding taught by Eylon is limited to titanium blades
without ribs.
5
Appeal2018-003479
Application 13/625,956
"\Vhen there are only two possible formulations and both are known
in the art at the time, the fact that there may be reasons a skilled artisan
would prefer one over the other does not amount to a teaching away from
the lesser preferred but still workable option." Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson
Labs., Inc., 874 F.3d 1316, (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re 1\1outtet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("l\1outtet fails to cite any reference suggesting that
the claimed invention would be unlikely to work using electrical circuitry;
he alleges only that it may be inferior for certain purposes. . . . In this case,
a known system such as an arithmetic/logic unit 'does not become patentable
simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other
product for the same use."'); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
("We share Gurley's view that a person seeking to improve the art of
flexible circuit boards, on learning from Yamaguchi that epoxy was inferior
to polyester-imide resins, might well be led to search beyond epoxy for
improved products. However, Yamaguchi also teaches that epoxy is usable
and has been used for Gurley's purpose."). Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 17, 18, and 20-22.
Claims 4, 15, 16, and 19
Unpatentable over Porter, Eylon, Matsen, and Wiggs/Neal/Kray
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on Wiggs, Neal, and
Kray to teach features recited in various dependent claims does not cure the
impropriety of modifying Porter with Eylon. Appeal Br. 7-8. Because we
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 11 as unpatentable
over Porter, Eylon, and Matsen, this argument is not persuasive and we also
sustain the rejections of claims 4, 15, 16, and 19, which depend respectively
from claims 1, 10, and 11.
6
Appeal2018-003479
Application 13/625,956
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, and 15-22.
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
7