Ex Parte Erdmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2017

11831078 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 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.
11/831,078 07/31/2007 Omer Duane Erdmann 224896 3859
6111 7590 09/12/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Global Patent Operation-Aviation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
PRAGER, JESSE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2017 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OMER DUANE ERDMANN, D. KEITH PATRICK,
DUSTIN ALFRED PLACKE, JOHN PETER HEYWARD, and
FRANCIS BOBIE
Appeal 2016-006651
Application 11/831,0781
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is the General
Electric Company, the assignee of record.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006651
Application 11/831,078
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A rotor blade comprising:
an airfoil; and
a tip shroud extending from said airfoil, said tip shroud having at
least one seal tooth which extends in a substantially
circumferential direction at a non-perpendicular angle relative to
a rotor axis when in an assembled condition, said tip shroud
including a pair of opposite interlock surfaces that facilitate
interlocking shrouds of adjacent rotor blades within a rotor;
wherein the at least one seal tooth is disposed such that when in
the assembled condition with a circumferentially adjacent rotor
blade, the at least one seal tooth is axially offset from and axially
overlaps with a seal tooth of the circumferentially adjacent rotor
blade at an interface between the respective seal teeth.
Rejections
Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—19 stand rejected under (pre-AIA)
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hirst (GB 2,399,602 A, published
Sept. 22, 2004) and Amahi et al. (JP 2005/127276 A, published May 19,
2005) (“Amahi”).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hirst, Amahi, and Dodd (US 5,609,470, issued
Mar. 11, 1997).
ANALYSIS
The Appellants assert that Hirst’s offset fins 4, 5 are parallel to the
engine’s centerline, which would “only [be] physically possible if the fins
are perpendicular to the engine centerline.” Br. 9. The Appellants assert
2
Appeal 2016-006651
Application 11/831,078
that Amahi’s “shrouds [have] planar mating surfaces with axial parting
lines,” but “[t]here is no mention or illustration of any interlocking features.”
Br. 9. However, the Appellants’ assertions fail to explain error in the
Examiner’s specific findings or in how the Examiner combines Hirst’s and
Amahi’s teachings to meet the requirements of the subject matter of
independent claim 1. See Final Act. 3^4. Rather, we agree with and adopt
as our own the Examiner’s response at pages 7—8 of the Answer.
The Appellants assert that Hirst’s “shrouds move relative to one
another in service” and submits that the prior art does not teach each and
every element of claim 1. Br. 10. But the Appellants’ assertion fails to
explain error in the Examiner’s specific findings or how the Examiner
combines the Hirst’s and Amahi’s teachings to meet the requirements of the
subject matter of independent claim 1. Rather, we agree with and adopt as
our own the Examiner’s response at pages 8—9 of the Answer.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Hirst and Amahi. Claims 2—6, 8—13, and 15—19 fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(iv); see also Br. 9 (arguing the claims as a
group).
The Appellants do not advance a separate argument for the rejection
of claims 7, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hirst,
Amahi, and Dodd. Claims 7, 14, and 20 depend either directly or indirectly
from independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. We sustain the rejection
of claims 7, 14, and 20 for the same reasons as discussed above.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
3
Appeal 2016-006651
Application 11/831,078
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4