Ex parte Kraft et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 1998

08509259 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 31, 1995.1
The record in the instant application indicates that2
subsequent to the final rejection, which is dated May 15, 1996
(Paper No. 6), the appellants filed a request for reconsideration
on July 19, 1996 (Paper No. 7), a petition/fee for a one month
extension of time and an appeal brief on September 23, 1996
(Paper Nos. 9 and 10), and a notice of appeal on October 18, 1996
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte ROBERT J. KRAFT and ROBERT J. McCLELLAND
________________
Appeal No. 97-2228
Application 08/509,2591
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before STAAB, McQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1 through
12, all of the claims pending in the application.2
Appeal No. 97-2228
Application 08/509,259
(Paper No. 11). The rather unusual step of filing the brief
prior to the notice of appeal is of no moment since the brief
itself would appear to meet the substantive requirements for a
notice of appeal (37 CFR § 1.191) and because the appropriate fee
for both a notice of appeal and a brief have been paid. The only
concern is whether the aforementioned petition/fee for a one
month extension of time (Paper No. 9) should have been for a two
month extension of time to render timely the filing of the brief
(i.e, the notice of appeal). This matter should be resolved upon
return of the application file to the examiner.
-2-
The invention relates to a turbine engine rotor blade having
a vibration damper. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
1. A rotor blade for a rotor assembly having a disk,
comprising:
a root, for securing said blade to the disk;
an airfoil, having a base, a tip, and at least one cavity
within said airfoil;
a platform, extending laterally outward from said blade
between said root and said airfoil, said platform having an
airfoil side and a root side, and an aperture extending between
said root side of said platform and said cavity; and
a damper;
wherein said damper is received within said aperture and
said cavity; and
wherein friction between said damper and a surface within
said cavity damps vibration of said blade.
Appeal No. 97-2228
Application 08/509,259
-3-
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness are:
Parkes 4,162,136 Jul. 24, 1979
Rimkunas et al. (Rimkunas) 5,407,321 Apr. 18, 1995
(filed Nov. 29, 1993)
Claims 1 through 4 and 10 through 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Rimkunas, and claims 5
through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rimkunas in view of Parkes.
Reference is made to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10)
and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 14) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.
Turning first to the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection,
anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Rimkunas discloses an airfoil vibration damper. Although
the damper is specifically described for use with hollow stator
vane airfoils disposed in the compressor section of a gas turbine
engine, Rimkunas indicates that the damper can be utilized in
Appeal No. 97-2228
Application 08/509,259
The term “said surface within said cavity” in the last3
clause of claim 12 lacks a proper antecedent basis, an
informality which is deserving of correction in the event of
further prosecution before the examiner.
-4-
other types of hollow airfoils which are subject to vibration
(see column 3, lines 19 through 26). As summarized by Rimkunas,
[d]amping for the airfoils of stator vanes is provided
by a spring damper formed from an elongated spring
element bent into a “U” or “V” shape in cross section
and oriented in the hollow of the airfoil so that the
legs of the “U” or “V” frictionally engage the inner
surfaces of the opposing pressure side and suction side
walls of the airfoil to dissipate the vibratory energy.
The elongated spring element is inserted through a hole
formed on one end of the airfoil to extend just short
of one of the ends of the airfoil to form a
cantilevered mounted spring [Abstract].
Figures 2, 4 and 5 show that the spring damper 39 or 70 is
received within an internal airfoil cavity via a hole or aperture
60 or 82 formed or cut in the base of the airfoil (see column 3,
line 59 through column 4, line 59).
Claims 1 and 12, the two independent claims on appeal,
recite a rotor blade comprising, inter alia, a platform extending
laterally outward from the blade between its root and airfoil,
and an aperture extending between the root side of the platform
and a cavity within the airfoil for receiving a damper. The3
appellants’ position that Rimkunas does not disclose such
structure (see pages 3 through 5 in the brief) is well taken.
Appeal No. 97-2228
Application 08/509,259
-5-
To begin with, Rimkunas does not expressly describe any of
the blades disclosed therein as having a platform. The
examiner’s assertion that a particular line of demarcation shown
in Figure 1 of the reference is the side view of a platform (see
page 5 in the answer) lacks factual support and is unduly
speculative. The related contention that “[i]t is generally
understood and universally accepted that all turbine engine
blades have a platform at the base ends of the blades” (answer,
page 5) also lacks factual support and indeed is refuted by
Rimkunas (see Figure 4) and by various other prior art references
of record in the application.
Moreover, even if Rimkunas did disclose a blade having a
platform extending laterally outward therefrom between its root
and airfoil, this reference lacks any teaching of an aperture
extending between the root side of such platform and a cavity
within the airfoil as recited in claims 1 and 12. The examiner’s
reliance on the aperture or hole 60 shown in Rimkunas’ Figure 4
to meet this limitation (see page 5 in the answer) is unsound
because hole 60 extends between the base or root side of the
airfoil and the cavity within the airfoil rather than between the
root side of any platform extending laterally outward from the
blade between its root and airfoil and the cavity.
Appeal No. 97-2228
Application 08/509,259
-6-
Thus, Rimkunas does not disclose, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of the rotor
blade recited in independent claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
these claims or of claims 2 through 4, 10 and 11 which depend
from claim 1.
The combined disclosures of Rimkunas and Parkes also fail to
teach, and would not have suggested, a rotor blade having the
foregoing features recited in claim 1. Therefore, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5
through 9, which depend from claim 1, as being unpatentable over
Rimkunas in view of Parkes.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-2228
Application 08/509,259
-7-
Richard D. Getz
United Technologies Corporation
Pratt & Whitney Gesp.
Patent Section
P. O. Box 109600 MS 702 37
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600