Ex Parte Cholet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 2, 2017

13380988 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2017)

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.
13/380,988 01/31/2012 Stephane Cholet 391412US41PCT 1070
22850 7590 11/06/2017
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
WILENSKY, MOSHE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/06/2017 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):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHANE CHOLET, BERTRAND LAMAISON,
XAVIER MALASSIGNE, and ARNAUD VILLANOVA
Appeal 2016-002718
Application 13/380,988
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 10, 11, and 13—20. Reply Br. 2. Claims 1—9 and 12 have
been canceled. See Amendments dated December 27, 2011 and December
4, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-002718
Application 13/380,988
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to the field of the manufacture of
components such as turbomachine blades using the forging technique,
notably the precision forging technique.” Spec. 1:4—7. Claim 10 is the sole
independent claim, is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced
below. 1
10. A method of manufacturing a component by
forging, comprising:
producing a semifinished component by forging:
determining compliant geometric characteristics of the
component to be obtained based on a theoretical model:
measuring geometric characteristics of the semifinished
component after the forging:
comparing the measured geometric characteristics of the
semifinished component after the forging and the compliant
geometric characteristics based on the theoretical model;
determining, on a surface of the component, zones which
are non-compliant based on the comparing:
determining an amount of material to be removed in each
non-compliant zone to make the non-compliant zone compliant;
creating a map of material to be removed based on the
determined amount of material to be removed; and
polishing the component using an abrasive belt in a
polishing machine to remove material at each non-compliant
zone,
wherein the polishing machine is controlled based on a
map of relative feed rate of the component with respect to the
polishing belt, the map of relative feed rate being based on the
map of material to be removed, and
1 Appellants’ Appeal Brief appends claims that were presented in an
amendment filed after a Final Rejection, yet were not entered by the
Examiner. Ans. 3; see also Advisory Action dated June 29, 2015
(“Advisory Action”). The claims reviewed (see, e.g., claim 10 above) are
those submitted by Appellants on December 4, 2014.
2
Appeal 2016-002718
Application 13/380,988
wherein a contact pressure of the belt against the surface
of the component is kept constant and a belt rotational speed is
kept constant during the polishing.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Bouillot
Rangarajan
US 2005/0136799 A1
US 2009/0144980 A1
June 23, 2005
June 11, 2009
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claim 10, 11, and 13—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bouillot and Rangarajan.
Appellants argue claims 10, 11, and 13—20 together. App. Br. 4—8.
We select independent claim 10 for review, with the remaining dependent
claims standing or falling with claim 10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 10 includes the limitation, “determining, on a surface of the
component, zones which are non-compliant.” The Examiner states, “[t]he
‘warp patches’ identified in Rangarajan correspond to the non-compliant
zone[s] of claim 10.” Final Act. 3. Appellants contend that as per
Rangarajan, the disclosed “warp patches” are in “a region proximate to a
zone” to be repaired and thus, “the warp patch of Rangarajan cannot
possibly be construed as a non-compliant zone” requiring repair “to make
the non-compliant zone compliant.” App. Br. 7. The Examiner provides
further clarification stating, “varying areas within the warp patches are
analogous to the recited non-compliant areas.'1'’ Ans. 8. Appellants do not
rebut this clarification or provide any explanation as to how Rangarajan fails
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2016-002718
Application 13/380,988
to employ the term “warp patch” to identify areas needing further work.2
See Rangarajan 119. Accordingly, Appellants argument regarding the
“proximate” nature of Rangarajan’s “warp patches” is not persuasive the
Examiner erred in correlating such patches to the recited non-compliant
zones.
Appellants further argue that Rangarajan states the thinner regions of
the part are referred to as the warp patch, and thus, the warp patch is
“repaired by build-up of the component” and “cannot possibly be construed
as a non-compliant zone having an amount of material to be removed to
make the non-compliant zone compliant.” App. Br. 7 (emphasis added).
The Examiner applied the teaching of Rangarajan, i.e., using a comparison
of actual to desired geometry to identify a non-compliant zone and creating a
tool path for each non-compliant zone, to modify Bouillot’s method of
manufacturing turbine blades to machine them to a desired final shape.
Final Act. 3. When Rangarajan’s technique is applied to Bouillot’s method,
as suggested by the Examiner, the result is a method that identifies a non-
compliant zone having an amount of material to be removed to make the
2 “The rigid patch 48 and warp patch 50 are identified based on the deviation
between the first set of points 16 on the native portion and the second set of
points of the computer model 18” (to be imitated). Rangarajan 125. Also,
regarding Rangarajan’s usage of the word “proximate,” Paragraph 19 states,
“[wjarp patch may be referred to as a region proximate to a repair zone of
the component and rigid patch may be referred to as region away from the
repair zone of the component.” Emphasis added. Thus, Rangarajan
employs the term “warp patch” to identify areas requiring further attention.
4
Appeal 2016-002718
Application 13/380,988
non-compliant zone compliant. As such, we discern no error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Rangarajan.
Claim 10 also includes the limitations (a) “wherein the polishing
machine is controlled based on a map of relative feed rate of the component
with respect to the polishing belt,” and (b) “wherein a contact pressure of the
belt against the surface of the component is kept constant and a belt
rotational speed is kept constant during the polishing.” Thus, according to
Appellants (and with emphasis added), claim 10 recites polishing “based on
a map of relative feed rate while keeping the contact pressure and belt
rotation speed constant.'1'’ App. Br. 7—8; see also Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner identifies where “Bouillot teaches that the depth of the
material removal is dependent on the contact force, belt rotation speed, and
workpiece feed rate.” Final Act. 4; Ans. 9 (both referencing Bouillot H 29—
34); see also Bouillot || 3, 41, 51—54. The Examiner finds that because the
“depth of material to be removed would vary along the workpiece” that one
skilled in the art “would know that at least one of the contact force, belt
rotation speed, and workpiece feed rate would need to be varied at certain
locations.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 9. Accordingly, because “[t]he prior
art also identifies a finite number of ways to accomplish this” (i.e., via
adjusting contact force, belt speed or feed rate), “[i]t would have been
obvious to try this small number of finite combinations to determine which
method would work.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner explains that one skilled
in the art “would infer that varying any one of these elements, while holding
the other two constant, would alter the amount of material being removed”
5
Appeal 2016-002718
Application 13/380,988
and that “it would have been obvious to try varying any one of the three
parameters individually to control the removal rate.”3 Ans. 9.
Appellants acknowledge that Bouillot identifies corresponding
machine parameters (i.e., “contact force, relative travel speed of the belt,
pass speed of the belt”), but states, “these parameters may be varied in an
infinite number of ways as these parameters may be varied independent of
each other.” App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3. Consequently, “Bouillot does
not show a finite number of possible solutions.” App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.
We disagree with Appellants’ premise that the three parameters
disclosed in Bouillot may be varied in an infinite number of ways as per the
language of claim 10. Claim 10 does not recite numerical values with
respect to these three parameters that may thus lead to an infinite number of
possibilities; instead, claim 10 only recites that two parameters remain
“constant” while the third is “relative.” Hence, as per the actual language of
claim 10, there are recited only two options (“constant” or “relative”) for
each of the three parameters (“contact pressure,” “belt rotational speed,” and
workpiece “feed rate”). Thus, at best, only a very limited number of
possibilities arise; not an infinite number as asserted by Appellants. As
such, Appellants are not persuasive that this finite number of possibilities is
so great that it would preclude or render untenable the Examiner’s “obvious
to try” rationale. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 9.
3 The Examiner goes further after addressing Paragraph 28 of Bouillot,
stating that “once the actual machining begins a single pressure is used” and
as such, one skilled in the art “would, at worst, be modifying two of the
parameters (rpms and feed rate) during the machining process” and not
three. Ans. 10 (emphasis added). In other words, “[vjarying one, or both, of
two factors is within a finite range of possible solutions.” Ans. 10.
6
Appeal 2016-002718
Application 13/380,988
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection based on the aforesaid “obvious to try” rationale.4
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, and 13—20 is affirmed.
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
4 The Examiner also provides an alternative “result effective variable”
rationale stating, “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges by routine experimentation.” Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner notes,
Appellants “do[] not address or argue against the result-effective-variable
rationale.” Ans. 10. Instead, Appellants incorrectly presume that because
the Examiner withdrew another, additional, “design choice” rationale (see
Final Act. 4; Advisory Action 2), that its subsequent withdrawal also applied
to the Examiner’s “result effective variable” rationale. Reply Br. 4. Hence,
because Appellants do not indicate any error with respect to the Examiner’s
“result effective variable” rationale, we sustain the rejection on this basis as
well.
7