12603629 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013)

Ex Parte El-Wardany et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 2013

12603629 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013)

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. 12/603,629 10/22/2009 Tahany Ibrahim El-Wardany PA1315UAA; 67097-831US2 6882 54549 7590 12/23/2013 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER MOLL, NITHYA JANAKIRAMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TAHANY IBRAHIM EL-WARDANY, CHANGSHENG GUO, DANIEL V. VIENS, ERIC FROMERTH, and LIENJING CHEN ____________________ Appeal 2012-000677 Application 12/603,629 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000677 Application 12/603,629 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to a tool for forming a rotor blade including an airfoil portion, and more particularly to designing a tool and a tool path for forming a rotor blade including an airfoil portion (Spec. 1, ¶[0002]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of designing a tool path for forming a rotor blade including an airfoil portion, comprising: generating a computer model of a cylindrical tool operable to form a rotor blade including an airfoil portion; generating a computer model of a rotor having a plurality of the rotor blades; generating a first tool motion corresponding to forming a first airfoil portion with a first side of the tool; and generating a second tool motion corresponding to forming a second airfoil portion with a second side of the tool. Appeal 2012-000677 Application 12/603,629 3 C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Marra US 2004/0030666 A1 Feb. 12, 2004 Sasu US 6,935,817 B2 Aug. 30, 2005 Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasu and Marra. II. ISSUES The main issues before us are whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Sasu and Marra teaches or would have suggested “generating a first tool motion corresponding to forming a first airfoil motion with a first side of the tool” and “generating a second tool motion corresponding to forming a second airfoil portion with a second side of the tool” (claim 1). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence: Appeal 2012-000677 Application 12/603,629 4 Sasu 1. Sasu discloses airfoil machining using cup tool, wherein Figure 1 is reproduced below: Figure 1 discloses a workpiece 10 machined in a numerically controlled multi-axis machine that operates a circular machining tool 28 having a cup-shaped body carrying a plurality of circumferentially spaced- apart cutting inserts 32 defining a cutting ring of a radius close to the desired radius of curvature of the airfoil blades 12 to be machined in the workpiece 10 (col. 3, ll. 19-26). 2. The convex suction side 18 of the airfoil blades 12 is formed with the inner circumferential surface of the cutting ring, while the concave pressure side surface 16 of the airfoil blades 12 is formed with the outer circumferential surface of the cutting ring (col. 3, ll. 54-59, Figs. 2-3). Appeal 2012-000677 Application 12/603,629 5 Marra 3. Marra discloses designing a multi-stage rotor using a knowledge-based product model software program to create a parametric, generative product model wherein various types of analyses are conducted to validate the model (Abstract), and wherein a determination is made as to whether any design constraints have been violated which would cause the rotor assembly not to satisfy the design requirements or be non-producible using modern manufacturing techniques (p. 3, ¶[0030]). IV. ANALYSIS As for independent claim 1, Appellants merely contend that Sasu “does not meet the limitation of claim 1 (or independent claim 10) of a cylindrical tool” wherein Sasu discloses “a single tool motion, and not the first and second tool motions as required by claim 1” (App. Br. 4). However, the Examiner notes that “[n]o definition of ‘motion’ is found in either Appellant’s Specification or the claims themselves,” and in fact, “there is no indication that the first and second motions of the claim language are different from one another” whereby “they could be the exact same motion performed twice,” and “they could be performed in sequence or concurrently” (Ans. 16). Thus, the Examiner finds that Sasu discloses that “consecutive airfoil blades 12 are being machined the convex side of one, and the concave side of the adjacent” wherein “[m]ultiple motions are generated corresponding to each airfoil portion, using opposite sides of the machining surface” (Ans. 18). We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion of obviousness. Appeal 2012-000677 Application 12/603,629 6 We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We agree with the Examiner that “[n]o definition of ‘motion’ is found in either Appellant’s Specification or the claims themselves” (Ans. 16). Thus, we give first or second tool “motion” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any movement of the tool corresponding to forming first and second portions of the airfoil. We agree with the Examiner that nothing in the claim precludes the first and second movements from being the same movement performed twice, or requires that the movements be performed concurrently or in sequence (id.). Sasu discloses a machining tool having a cutting ring with cutting inserts for machining airfoil blades in a workpiece (FF 1), wherein the convex suction side of the airfoil blades is formed with the inner circumferential surface of the cutting ring, while the concave pressure side surface of the airfoil blades is formed with the outer circumferential surface of the cutting ring (FF 2). That is, Sasu discloses cutting ring motions for machining the airfoil blades in the workpiece, wherein the convex suction side is formed with a first inner side of the cutting ring while the concave pressure side surface is formed with a second outer side of the cutting ring. Thus, we find that Sasu discloses at least a first tool motion corresponding to the forming of the convex suction side of the airfoil blades with a first side of the tool and a second tool motion corresponding to the forming of the concave pressure side surface of the airfoil blades with a second side of the tool. That is, we find no error with the Examiner’s Appeal 2012-000677 Application 12/603,629 7 finding that Sasu discloses that “consecutive airfoil blades 12 are being machined the convex side of one, and the concave side of the adjacent” wherein “[m]ultiple motions are generated corresponding to each airfoil portion, using opposite sides of the machining surface” (Ans. 18). Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that Sasu in view of Marra would at least have suggested the features of claim 1. As for claim 4, Appellants merely argue that Sasu “would not ensure or maintain, or even have any distance, and would in fact contact the adjacent blade” and thus “claim 4 is not properly met by Sasu” (App. Br. 5). Appellants appear to be arguing that Sasu individually does not anticipate claim 4. However, the Examiner has rejected the claims over the combined teachings of Sasu and Marra, and the test for obviousness is not what the references show individually, but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Marra discloses conducting analyses to validate a computer model wherein a determination is made as to whether any design constraints have been violated (FF 3). We find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the Marra, combined with Sasu, would at least have suggested the “verifying” steps of claim 4. As for claim 5, Appellants merely points out what a claim recites. However, a statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii). That is, Appellants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out Appeal 2012-000677 Application 12/603,629 8 how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference. As for claim 7, Appellants merely argue that Sasu “includes a plurality of angled inserts which do not together define a cylindrical surface” and that “inner peripheral and outer peripheral surfaces are not utilized for two distinct tool motions” (App. Br. 5). However, as the Examiner points out, “the plurality of angled cutting inserts 32 are not the entirety of the cutting tool [of Sasu]” whereas “cup mill 28 (of which inserts 32 are merely one aspect) is a cylindrical cutting surface” (Ans. 20) and whereas “first and second motions of the claim language . . . could be the exact same motion performed twice” (Ans. 21). Sasu discloses a circular machining tool 28 having a cup-shaped body carrying a plurality of circumferentially spaced-apart cutting inserts 32 defining a cutting ring (FF 1). We find no error with the Examiner’s finding that Sasu discloses a cylindrical cutting portion comprising cup mill 28 and inserts 32 (Ans. 20). Further, as discussed above, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that Sasu discloses that “[m]ultiple motions are generated corresponding to each airfoil portion, using opposite sides of the machining surface” (Ans. 18). Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Sasu and Marra would at least have suggested the features of claim 7. Appellants do not provide arguments for independent claim 10 separate from claims 1, 4, and 7 (App. Br. 5), and provides no arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11. Thus, Appellants also have not shown error with the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8-11over Sasu and Marra. Appeal 2012-000677 Application 12/603,629 9 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rwk