Ex Parte Himes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2019

14623416 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/623,416 02/16/2015 Jason D. Himes
54549 7590 02/15/2019
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.
PA35393-US;67097-3170PUS 1 8964
EXAMINER
WONG,ELTONK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2019 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
Exparte JASON D. HIMES, SCOTT D. VIRKLER,
JORDAN TRESSER, DWAYNE K. MECKLENBURG,
ROSS WILSON, and DAVID RICHARD GRIFFIN
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-11, and 13-20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, United Technologies Corporation, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated April 20, 201 7, as
supplemented by the Advisory Action dated June 7, 2017.
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 9, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1
and 18, reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A gas turbine engine rotor assembly comprising:
a rotor disk with a slot;
a rotor blade has a root supported within the slot;
a heat shield arranged in a cavity in the slot between
the root and the rotor disk; and
an axial retention feature, wherein the axial
retention feature includes a forward flange that extends
from a longitudinal portion and engages a forward side of
the disk and an aft flange that extends from the
longitudinal portion and engages an aft side of the disk.
18. A method of assembling a rotatable turbine stage, the
method comprising the steps of:
inserting a heat shield into a slot of a rotor disk;
installing a blade into the slot; and
axially retaining the heat shield in the slot with an
axial retention feature, wherein the axial retention feature
includes a forward flange that extends form a longitudinal
portion and engages a forward side of the disk and an aft
flange the extends from the longitudinal portion and
engages an aft side of the disk.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1--4, 7-11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Schiavo (US 6,059,529; issued May 9, 2000) and
Thiebault3 (FR 2,983,899; published June 14, 2013).
3 We rely on the English language translation provided in the record.
2
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
II. Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Schiavo, Thiebault, and Antonellis (US 5,339,619; issued
August 23, 1994).
III. Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Schiavo, Thiebault, and Kupratis (US 8,935,913 B2;
issued January 20, 2015).
IV. Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Schiavo, Thiebault, and Roberts (US 2002/0085917 Al;
published July 4, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1--4, 7-11, and 14 as a group. Appeal Br. 4--
7. We select independent claim 1 as representative, with claims 2--4, 7-11,
and 14 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Schiavo
teaches a gas turbine engine rotor assembly including a rotor blade (i.e.,
turbine blade 2) with a root (i.e., blade root 4) supported within a slot (i.e.,
groove 8) of a rotor disk (i.e., rotor 6), and a heat shield (i.e., elongate
cooling air handling device or plenum tube 10, referred to herein as "heat
shield 10") with a forward side (i.e., at leading edge 12) and an aft side (i.e.,
at trailing edge 13), which is arranged in a cavity in the slot between the root
and the rotor disk, as claimed. Final Act. 3 ( citing Schiavo, Fig. 1 ); Ans. 2.
The Examiner determines that Schiavo does not expressly teach an axial
retention feature, as claimed, and relies on Thiebault for teaching that a
balancing mass or balance weight 28 has axial retention features in the form
3
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
of flanges (i.e., shoulders 32) "[to] allow[] the mass to be mounted onto the
disk and be axially maintained in the slot." Id. at 4 (citing Thiebault ,r 27,
Fig. 3A). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious "to modify
the heat shield taught by Schiavo with the axial retention features taught by
Thiebault, since the addition of the flanges would help axially maintain the
heat shield within the slot." Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's proposed combination renders
Schiavo "unsuitable for its intended purpose." Appeal Br. 4. In particular,
Appellant submits that
Id.
[t]he proposed modification would require the plenum tube 10 of
Schiavo to be installed using an insert, then drop radially inward,
installation sequence. As a result of this installation sequence,
the radially outward surface of the walls 50 and 58 4 of the plenum
tube would lose contact with the rotor root 4, causing the inlet
section and the outlet section defined by the plenum tube 10 to
be fluidly connected prior to entering and exiting, respectively,
the root 4. The fluid connection would, in effect, short circuit
the rotor 4 entirely. As a result of this short circuiting, the
plenum tube 10 would not be able to operate in its intended
manner, and the modification would render the device unsuitable
for its intended purpose.
The Examiner responds that
[ w ]hen installing the proposed heat shield, one of ordinary skill
in the art would first insert the heat shield in the slot, radially
lower said shield, then axially install the rotor blade over the
shield. One of ordinary skill in the art would design the size of
the shield and blade root appropriately such that the gap between
4 Notably, Schiavo discloses that plenum tube 10 comprises a channel 34
enclosed by cover 24, and therefore, we interpret Appellant's argument as
contending that cover 24 would lose contact with blade root 4. See Schiavo
3:22-35.
4
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
the two is either minimal or essentially nonexistent after insertion
of the blade.
Ans. 3 (citing Schiavo 3:22-30). Regarding Appellant's argument that the
Examiner's modification would result in "'short circuiting' of cooling air,"
the Examiner determines that such short circuiting would occur in two
instances: (i) "if the blade were inserted prior to the heat shield," however,
"there is no evidence in the prior art that would suggest on of ordinary skill
in the art would [implement the Examiner's proposed modification in this
way]"; and (ii) "if the shield were first installed and the blade was installed
such that a gap was formed between the shield and the blade due to a space
between the shield and root not being accounted for during design,"
however, again, "there is no evidence in the prior art that shows this is a
necessary result of the modification." Id.
Appellant replies generally that the Examiner improperly relies on
"[an] alleged knowledge of one of skill in the art without citing to any
evidence of that knowledge." Reply Br. 2.
As an initial matter, Schiavo teaches one skilled in the art that welding
or brazing plenum tube 2 to the bottom surface of blade root 2 is preferable,
but not required. For example, Schiavo discloses, with reference to Figure
1, that
blade root 4 is secured to a groove 8 in the rotor 6 by means of
serrations formed in the root that engage mating serrations
formed in the groove 8, as is conventional. According to the
current invention, however, an elongated cooling air handling
device 10, or plenum tube, is disposed underneath the root 4,
between the bottom of the root and the bottom of the groove 8.
Preferably, the plenum tube 10 is welded or brazed to the bottom
surface of the blade root 2. As shown in FIG. 3-8, the plenum
tube 10 comprises an approximately U-shaped channel 34
5
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
enclosed by a cover 24. A longitudinally extending fin 32 ensures
that the plenum tube 10 will be properly positioned in the rotor
groove 8 in the event that the joint between the tube and the blade
root 4 is broken.
Schiavo 3 :22-35 ( emphasis added); see also Ans. 3--4. In other words,
Schiavo discloses that the required alignment between plenum tube 10 and
blade root 8 for proper air circulation may be achieved by welding or brazing
plenum tube 10 to blade root 8, but at least radial contact between plenum
tube 10 and blade root 8 is ensured by fin 32 in the event there is no welding
or brazing therebetween. 5 The Examiner's proposed modification to
Schiavo's plenum tube 10, which adds Thiebault's shoulder 32 to both the
forward and aft ends of Schiavo's plenum tube 10 for axially abutting a side
face of rotor 6, ensures correct axial positioning of plenum tube 10 relative
to blade root 8. See Ans. 3.
Further, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's determination that
to install Schiavo's plenum tube 10, as modified to have Thiebault's
shoulders 32, first, plenum tube 10 must be axially inserted into a rotor
groove or slot due to the narrow groove 8 of Schiavo' s rotor 6 ( as opposed to
a radial insertion), and second, plenum tube 10 must be dropped or lowered
so that shoulders 32 engage rotor 6 to maintain axial alignment of Schiavo's
modified plenum tube 10 within groove 8. See id. ("[ w ]hen installing the
5 This determination renders moot Appellant's arguments addressing
installation of plenum tube 10 while welded to blade root 8, rather than
separate installation of plenum tube 10 and blade root 8, as relied on by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 4 (arguing that "the alleged 'loosened state' of
Schiavo does not exist," in that "Schiavo expressly describes joining the
plenum tube 10 to the root 4 via a weld or a braze" ( citing Schiavo 3 :22-
35) ); Reply Br. 2-3.
6
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
proposed combination heat shield, one of ordinary skill in the art would first
insert the heat shield in the slot, radially lower said shield, then axially
install the rotor blade over the shield"). However, to the extent that
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on knowledge of one skilled
in the art lacks evidentiary support, we determine that both Schiavo and
Thiebault at least suggest to one skilled in the art that axial assembly ( as
opposed to radial assembly) is required to insert Schiavo's unmodified
plenum tube 10 into groove 8, due to the narrow neck of groove 8, as well as
to insert Thiebault's balance weight 28 into the receiving cell, due to the
narrow size of the neck of Thiebault' s cell. 6 See, e.g., Schiavo 3 :22-25
(disclosing, analogously, that insertion of blade root 4 in groove 8 is
conventional), Fig. 1; Thiebault, Fig. 2. Moreover, Appellant, after
considering the Examiner's proposed combination, conclude that "[t]he
proposed modification would require the plenum tube 10 of Schiavo to be
installed using an insert, then drop radially inward, installation sequence."
Appeal Br. 4.
Finally, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the
art would design the size of Schiavo' s plenum tube 10 and blade root 4
appropriately such that no gap exists between them, in view of Schiavo's
teaching that fin 32 must support plenum tube 10 in proper contact against
blade root 4, after insertion, as set forth supra. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
6 We view the Examiner's reliance on Roberts as unnecessary in this regard
and note that Roberts is not included in the Examiner's statement of
rejection. See, e.g., Final Act. 3. Further, we do not understand the
Examiner's rejection to require radially inserting Schiavo's plenum tube 10
into Schiavo's groove 8, as argued by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 5-6
(arguing that "it is not possible to radially insert the plenum tube 10").
7
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2--4, 7-11, and 14 fall therewith.
Rejections II and III
Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability
of claims 6, 13, and 15-17 apart from the arguments presented supra.
Appeal Br. 4--7. Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons stated supra
with respect to independent claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 6, 13, and 15-17.
Rejection IV
Appellant argues claims 18-20 as a group. Appeal Br. 4--7. We
select independent claim 18 as representative, with claims 19 and 20
standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 18, the Examiner finds that the
combination of Schiavo and Thiebault disclose the structure of the gas
turbine engine, as required by the method of claim 18 and as applied to
independent claim 1 supra. Final Act. 10. The Examiner determines,
however, that Schiavo and Thiebault are "silent" about a particular method
of assembly, and the Examiner relies on Roberts for disclosing the claimed
method steps of: (i) inserting a twist lock 30 into a slot (i.e., channels 24) of
a rotor disk (i.e., rotor wheel 10); (ii) installing a blade into a slot of a rotor
disk (i.e., sliding together the female and male dovetails of rotor wheel 10
and buckets 16); and (iii) axially retaining twist lock 30 with an axial
retention feature (i.e., heads 32, 34); as claimed. Id.; see Roberts ,r 34
("twist locks 30 may be inserted into channels 24 before the male dovetails
8
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
14 . .. may be slid axially into the female dovetails 12") (emphasis added),
Fig. 1.
The Examiner acknowledges that one skilled in the art would
recognize that at least Roberts' partial head 34 does not allow for axial
insertion of twist lock 30 "due to the geometry" of channels 24. Final Act.
10 (citing Roberts Fig. 1). Notwithstanding, the Examiner determines that it
would have been "obvious to try," with "a reasonable expectation of
success": (i) inserting Schiavo' s plenum tube 10, as modified by Thiebault,
into a slot of a rotor disk.first; (ii) separately, installing Schiavo's blade root
4 into groove 8; and (iii)finally, axially retaining Schiavo's plenum tube 10
via flanges similar to Thiebault's shoulder 32, as these steps are both
disclosed in Roberts and required by claim 18, and "since there are only a
limited number of ways to assemble the rotatable turbine stage without being
obstructed." Id. 10-11; see also Ans. 4--5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on Roberts is improper
because Roberts discloses radial, not axial, insertion of twist lock 30.
Appeal Br. 5-7. However, as set forth supra, the Examiner relies on Roberts
for disclosing the claimed method steps; the Examiner does not rely on
Roberts for disclosing the type of insertion (radial verses axial). Indeed, as
set forth supra, the Examiner acknowledges that Roberts discloses radial
insertion of twist lock 30. Thus, Appellant's argument does not apprise us
of error in the Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 18, and claims 19 and 20 fall therewith.
9
Appeal2018-002516
Application 14/623,416
DECISION
The Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1--4, 6-11, and 13-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10