Ex Parte Malmborg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2018

13248350 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2018)

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.
13/248,350 09/29/2011 Eric W. Malmborg 67097- 1557PUS1 ;57027US 1 1088
54549 7590 03/16/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
MIKUS, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2018 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
Ex parte ERIC W. MALMBORG, DAVID P. HOUSTON,
JAMES R. MIDGLEY, ROBERT A. GRELOTTI, and
JOSEPH W. BRIDGES
Appeal 2017-003078
Application 13/248,350
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
According to Appellants, the invention “relates to a gas turbine
engine, and[,] more particularly^] to a rotor stack assembly for a gas turbine
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-003078
Application 13/248,350
engine.” Spec. ^ 1. Claims 1,7, 15, and 19 are the independent claims on
appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A rotor stack assembly for a gas turbine engine,
comprising:
a first rotor assembly having a first rim, a first bore and a
first web that extends between said first rim and said first bore;
a second rotor assembly aft of said first rotor assembly and
having a second rim, a second bore and a second web that extends
between said second rim and said second bore, at least one of
said first rotor assembly and said second rotor assembly
including a rotor blade that extends radially outboard of said first
rim or said second rim;
a tie shaft positioned radially inward of said first bore and
said second bore, wherein said tie shaft maintains a compressive
load on said first rotor assembly and said second rotor assembly,
said tie shaft threaded through a forward hub and snapped into
an aft hub; and
said compressive load is communicated through a first
load path of said first rotor assembly and a second load path of
said second rotor assembly, wherein at least one of said first load
path and said second load path is radially inboard of said first rim
and said second rim.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 7-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Malmborg (US 8,550,784 B2, iss. Oct. 8, 2013);
II. Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Suciu (US 7,059,831 B2, iss. June 13, 2006);
2
Appeal 2017-003078
Application 13/248,350
III. Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McDowall (US 2,675,174, iss. Apr. 13, 1954) and Petin
(US 2003/0089226 Al, pub. May 15, 2003);
IV. Claims 15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McDowall and Suciu;
V. Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Aschenbruck (US 2011/0052371 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2011)
and Suciu; and
VI. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McDowall, Petin, and Aschenbruck.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
In response to Appellants’ argument in the Appeal Brief that
Malmborg does not anticipate independent claim 7 (Appeal Br. 4-6), the
Examiner relies on Malmborg’s figure to disclose recitations of the claim
(Answer 2-3). In reply, Appellants argue that the rejection is in error
because
it is not possible to conclude, based on [Malmborg’s figure]
alone, whether the radial gaps are larger at. . . disk 40 [than at
disk 35]. There is no indication that the figure of Malmborg is
drawn to scale and[,] therefore[,] any argument based on
measurements of the alleged radial gaps is mere conjecture.
Reply Br. 2. Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain this
rejection.
The anticipation rejection relies on a finding by the Examiner that
Malmborg’s figure shows that a first distance between a first rim and a first
3
Appeal 2017-003078
Application 13/248,350
load path of a first rotor assembly (i.e., Malmborg’s disk 40) is greater than a
second distance between a second rim and a second load path of a second
rotor assembly (i.e., Malmborg’s disk 35). But, “it is well established that
patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and
may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is
completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group
Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Examiner does not provide
any evidence, such as a discussion within Malmborg, that Malmborg’s
figure is drawn to scale. Thus, we are unable to rely on Malmborg’s figure
to disclose the claimed first and second distances.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 7. Inasmuch as claims 8-14 depend from claim 7, and are
rejected for the same reasons as claim 7, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 8-14.
Rejection II
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 19, based on Suciu, is in error because
Suciu fails to teach or suggest a rotor stack assembly that
incorporates both “an integrally bladed rotor assembly” and a
“bladed rotor assembly.” Suciu appears to suggest using one or
the other type of rotor assembly[,] but does not disclose using
both types of rotors within a single rotor stack assembly.
Appeal Br. 7 (emphases omitted) (citation omitted). Based on our review of
the record, we are not persuaded of error, however.
Appellants are correct that claim 19 recites “a bladed rotor assembly
aft of [an] integrally bladed rotor assembly.” See Appeal Br., Claims App.
But, based on the text itself of claim 19, an “integrally bladed rotor
4
Appeal 2017-003078
Application 13/248,350
assembly” appears to be a (particular type of) “bladed rotor assembly.”
Appellants concede that Suciu discloses using multiple integrally-bladed
rotor assemblies. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3. Thus, in the absence of
persuasive evidence or argument by Appellants, we determine that Suciu’s
disclosure of two integrally-bladed rotor assemblies teaches claim 19’s
recitation of a “bladed rotor assembly” and an “integral bladed rotor
assembly” as claimed.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 19. Because Appellants do not separately argue against
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 20 that depends from
claim 19, we also sustain claim 20’s rejection.
Rejection III
As set forth above, claim 1 recites, in part, a “tie shaft threaded
through a forward hub and snapped into an aft hub.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 is in error because
[fjirst, ... tie rod 75 of Petin is not the same thing as a tie shaft
for a rotor stack assembly of a gas turbine engine. Instead, . . .
tie rod 75 is part of a power booster for an automotive vehicle.
See, e.g., [0001]-[0004], Second, there is no teaching that. . .
tie rod 75 is “snapped into an aft hub” of a rotor stack assembly.
Petin only discloses that. . . tube 70 establishes an interference
fit with the tie rod. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
not automatically equate an “interference fit” with a “snap fit.”
Appeal Br. 8. Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain the
rejection.
The Examiner responds to Appellants by stating that
Appellants] ha[ve] never defined exactly what snapping two
components into arrangement may be if different from being
5
Appeal 2017-003078
Application 13/248,350
placed in an interference fit configuration. Absent such a
definition, the act of placing a tie rod in an interference fit with
an aft hub, as is done in Petin, would meet the claimed limitations
set forth.
Answer 5. We determine that this, alone, is not sufficient to establish that
Petin’s “interference fit” teaches the structural configuration of a shaft
snapped into a hub, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 2-6 that depend from claim 1 and which the
Examiner rejects based on the same deficiency as claim 1.
Rejection IV
Independent claim 15 recites, in part, “lowering a load path of a rotor
assembly of the rotor stack assembly including establishing a radial gap
having a first distance between the rim and the load path of the rotor
assembly, wherein the radial gap is greater than a second radial gap of an
upstream rotor assembly.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Similar to the
argument with respect to Rejection I (supra), Appellants argue that the
rejection of claim 15 is in error because
McDowall fails to teach or suggest that a “radial gap” of a rotor
assembly “is greater than a second radial gap of an upstream
rotor assembly.” Suciu fails to cure these deficiencies because it
does not explicitly teach that the “radial gap” of the alleged rotor
assembly 54G is larger than a second radial gap associated with
upstream rotor assembly 54C. The Examiner again appears to
be improperly extrapolating these features of the claims from the
figures alone. However, the figures of McDowall and Suciu are
not indicated as being drawn to scale.
Appeal Br. 9. Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain the
rejection.
6
Appeal 2017-003078
Application 13/248,350
As discussed above, “it is well established that patent drawings do not
define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to
show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”
Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Examiner
does not provide any evidence, such as by referencing any statement within
Suciu, that Suciu’s Figure 2 is drawn to scale. Thus, we are unable to rely
on Suciu’s Figure 2 to disclose the claimed radial gaps.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 15. Inasmuch as claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 15,
and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 15, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 17 and 18.
Rejection V
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 19 and 20 is erroneous based on the following:
Aschenbruck teaches away from the proposed modification of
moving ... tie rod 4 radially inboard of the bores of the disks.
Aschenbruck teaches a disk arrangement in which .. . disks 2 are
positioned relative to one another by Hirth-type spur teeth 3 or
Gleason-type teeth[,] and are clamped by tie rods 4 just inboard
of the disk rims to form a rotor composite. This tie rod position
is utilized to ensure that the disks rotate together and cooperate
to carry a blade. See, e.g., [0025]-[0028]. Moving the
location of . . . tie rod 4 inwardly would lessen the amount of
compression applied at the rims of . . . disks 2 and thus
compromise the ability of . . . disks 2 to carry the blades. The
proposed modification would likely result in displacement of the
blades from the disks, and thus would render the compressor
rotor ineffective for its intended purpose.
Appeal Br. 9-10 (emphases omitted). Appellants do not provide evidence or
a line of argument sufficient to persuade us that the Examiner errs, but,
7
Appeal 2017-003078
Application 13/248,350
instead, Appellants’ remarks appear to be highly speculative as to what may
occur. Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 19 and 20.
Rejection VI
Claim 21 depends from independent claim 1, and we do not affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 1 based on McDowall and Petin (see supra).
Inasmuch as the Examiner does not demonstrate that Aschenbruck remedies
the deficiency in claim 1 ’s rejection, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 7-14.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 19
and 20.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-6,
15, 17, 19, and 21.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 19
and 20.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8