Ex Parte Klasing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2012

11507119 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KEVIN SAMUEL KLASING,
CHING-PANG LEE, PAUL HADLEY VITT, and
BRIAN DAVID KEITH
____________________

Appeal 2010-007544
Application 11/507,119
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DANIEL S. SONG, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007544
Application 11/507,119

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by Appellants1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, and 12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

References Relied on by the Examiner
Cherry et al. (“Cherry”) 6,672,829 Jan. 6, 2004

The Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-7, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Cherry.

The Invention
The invention relates to turbine blades for gas turbine engines. (Spec.,
p. 1, ¶ 0001.) Figure 4 (reproduced below) illustrates a turbine blade
corresponding to the claimed invention:

1 The real party in interest is stated to be General Electric Company.
(App. Br., p. 2.)
App
App

posit
turbi
incor
flare
exter
bene

(App
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Fi
th
th
As show
ion a tip 3
ne shroud
porates a
” 44. (Id.
nal surfac
fit of the f
The flare
an effect
radially
schemat
Claims 1
. Br., p. 2
07544
/507,119
gure 4 de
rough a f
e inventio
n in the fi
0 of the ai
46. (Spec
“flared sec
at p. 7, ¶ 0
e of suctio
lared seco
second ri
ive flow r
outwardly
ically in F
and 11 ar
8, Claims A
picts a tra
orward po
n. (Spec.
gure above
rfoil adjac
., p. 8, ¶ 0
ond rib” 3
040.) Fla
n side 22.
nd rib 38 a
b 38 along
estriction f
over the le
igures 3 an
e indepen
pp’x.):
3
nsverse r
rtion of a
, p. 4, ¶ 00
, an airfoi
ent to the i
046.) A “s
8 which in
re 44 exte
(Id.) The
s follows
the suctio
or the com
ading edg
d 4.
dent claim
adial secti
n airfoil a
23.)
l is sized i
nner surfa
uction sid
cludes an
nds so as t
specificat
(id. at p. 7
n side of t
bustion g
e region o
s and are r
onal view
ccording
n radial sp
ce of a sur
e” 22 of th
“outboard
o “overha
ion explai
, ¶ 0047):
he airfoil
ases as the
f the airfo
eproduced

to
an so as to
rounding
e airfoil
surface
ng” the
ns the
introduces
y flow
il as shown
below

Appeal 2010-007544
Application 11/507,119

4
1. A turbine blade comprising:

an airfoil, platform at the root thereof, and a supporting
dovetail;

said airfoil having transversely opposite pressure and suction
sides extending in chord between leading and trailing edges and
extending in span from said root to a tip;

said tip includes first and second ribs conforming with said
pressure and suction sides, respectively, and spaced transversely apart
between said leading and trailing edges to define a tip cavity having a
floor enclosing said airfoil; and

said second rib includes an outboard surface flare spreading
laterally outwardly from said suction side to provide an overhang
thereabove.

11. A turbine blade including an airfoil terminating in a top having
a first rib conforming with a concave pressure side and a second rib
conforming with a convex external suction side and being flared
laterally outwardly from said suction side to provide an overhang
thereabove.
B. ISSUE
Did the Examiner correctly find that Cherry discloses an airfoil having
a suction side and a flared portion which extends “laterally outwardly from
said suction side to provide an overhang thereabove” as required by claims 1
and 11?
C. ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, and 12 as anticipated by
Cherry. Each of independent claims 1 and 11 is directed to a turbine blade
including an airfoil. Each claim requires that the airfoil include a first rib
App
App

and a
“suc
call f
side
Exam
porti
9-20

(Che
and
colum

eal 2010-0
lication 11
second ri
tion side”
or a flared
to provide
iner’s rej
on extend
.)
Cherry d
rry, Abstr
11, the Exa
n 6, lines
Figure 8
Fi
of

07544
/507,119
b associat
of the airfo
portion w
an overha
ection on t
ing so as to
iscloses a
act.) In ac
miner reli
13-16 of
is reprodu
gure 8 ab
an airfoil
ed, respect
il. In con
hich exten
ng thereab
he basis th
overhang
turbine bl
counting f
es on Che
the specifi
ced below
ove depic
. (Cherry
5
ively, with
nection w
ds “latera
ove.” The
at Cherry
the airfoi
ade having
or the abo
rry’s Figur
cation. (A
:
ts a sectio
, 3:14-20.
a “pressu
ith the sec
lly outwar
Appellan
lacks disc
l’s suction
an angled
ve-noted f
e 8 and its
ns., p. 4.)
nal view o
)
re side” an
ond rib, th
dly from s
ts challen
losure of t
side. (A
squealer
eature of c
disclosur

f a blade
d a
e claims
aid suction
ge the
hat flared
pp. Br., pp
tip.
laims 1
e at
tip

.

Appeal 2010-007544
Application 11/507,119

6
Column 6, lines 13-16 of Cherry reads:
It will also be noted from FIG. 8 that the second rib tip 52 may
be recessed with respect to suction sidewall 30 to form a tip
shelf 88 when inclined in the negative (downstream) direction.

There is no dispute between the Examiner and the Appellants that
Figure 8 does not illustrate a flared laterally outwardly extending portion
which overhangs sidewall 30. Rather, according to the Examiner, the
pertinent feature is satisfied in Cherry when Figure 8 is assessed in
conjunction with above-quoted portion of Cherry’s column 6. Specifically,
the Examiner takes the view that Cherry’s statement that the second rib tip
52 “may be recessed” constitutes disclosure of a non-illustrated embodiment
of the invention in which the rib tip is not recessed. (Ans., pp. 6-7.)
Evidently, in that alleged embodiment, tip shelf 88 is omitted and the second
rib tip 52 maintains its angled configuration so as to overhang suction
sidewall 30.
The rejection before us is one of anticipation. Anticipation requires
that a single reference disclose all elements of the claimed invention with
sufficient specificity to convey possession of that invention. In re Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Stated more succinctly, “the hallmark
of anticipation is prior invention.” Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign Inc., 545
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Cherry does not describe the
presence of an overhanging portion for its suction sidewall in any of the
numerous embodiments depicted therein. Neither does the reference set
forth, or even suggest, that any benefit would arise from incorporating such
an overhang in an airfoil. On this record, we do not discern that Cherry
contemplated any suction side overhang flange as a part of its disclosed
Appeal 2010-007544
Application 11/507,119

7
invention. We thus do not agree with the Examiner’s evaluation of what is
disclosed in Cherry. Instead, we share the Appellants’ view (e.g., App. Br.,
p. 11, ll. 9-25) that a theoretical disclosure in Cherry arising from the term
“may be” is inadequate to support the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11 and 12 as anticipated by Cherry.
D. CONCLUSION
On this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not correctly find
that Cherry discloses an airfoil having a suction side and a flared portion
which extends “laterally outwardly from said suction side to provide an
overhang thereabove” as required by claims 1 and 11.
E. ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Cherry is reversed.

REVERSED

cu