Ex Parte Nadvit et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 2010

11383988 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GREGORY M. NADVIT, ANDREW D. WILLIAMS,
LEONE J. TESSARINI, and MICHEL P. ARNAL
____________

Appeal 2009-008401
Application 11/383,988
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEN B. BARRETT and FRED A.
SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008401
Application 11/383,988

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gregory M. Nadvit et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s non-final rejection2 of claims 1-20, the only
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002). We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of Appellants’ invention:
1. A turbomachinery blade having an airfoil
connected to a platform in a root region, the airfoil
having a trailing edge extending from the root
region to a tip distal from the root region, the
turbomachinery blade comprising a blind relief
hole in the platform proximate the trailing edge.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 15, 18 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fukuno (US 6,190,128 B1,
issued February 20, 2001). The Examiner has also rejected claims 3, 5-9,
16, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukuno;
claim 13 as being unpatentable over Fukuno in view of Stroud (US
5,096,379, issued March 17, 1992); and claim 14 as being unpatentable over
Fukuno in view of Jacala (US 2006/0056969, published March 16, 2006).

ISSUE
Does the Fukuno patent disclose a turbomachinery blade having a
platform with a blind relief hole disposed therein?

2 Claims 1-20 have twice been rejected.
Appeal 2009-008401
Application 11/383,988

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that one or both of holes 21, 22 disclosed in
Fukuno are responsive to the claim limitation, set forth in each of
independent claims 1 and 11, requiring that a “blind relief hole” be provided
in the platform portion of a turbomachinery blade. (Ans. 3, 8-9). There is
no dispute that those holes are “relief holes”; rather the issue joined by
Appellants is whether or not holes 21, 22 are “blind” relief holes. (Appeal
Br. 4-5).
The Examiner maintains that the holes are blind, relying on a
“definition” provided in Appellants’ Specification, as well as three
definitions of “blind hole” obtained by Appellants from an Internet reference
source. Paragraph [0017] of Appellants’ Specification, in describing an
exemplary embodiment of the invention, states that, “the relief hole 240 is a
blind hole, i.e., it does not exit on any other face of the platform 204”. The
relevant definitions obtained by Appellants, taken from an Internet resource
include: “[a]ny hole or cavity cut into a solid that does not connect with
other holes”; “[a] hole that does not pass right through a material, as a
bottomless hole does”; and “a hole that is reamed, drilled, milled, etc., to a
specified depth. The etymology is that you cannot see through a Blind
Hole”. (Appeal Br., Evidence Appendix, Appendix B).
The Examiner finds, with respect to these latter definitions, that holes
21, 22 in Fukuno do not connect with another hole, but rather with a passage
3; are not bottomless; and one cannot see through the holes. (Ans. 3). With
respect to the “definition” provided in the Specification, the Examiner finds
that holes 21, 22 in Fukuno:
do not exit on the other side of the platform, or any
Appeal 2009-008401
Application 11/383,988

4
other surface of the platform for that matter. . . .
Since Fukuno has a platform with six geometric
sides and only a single exit on the platform for
each hole 21, 22, the holes 21, 22 of Fukuno do not
exit on any other face of the platform, and are
therefore blind.
(Ans. 8).
Both the Examiner and Appellants agree that holes 21, 22 in the
Fukuno platform are in fluid communication with a cooling air passage 3
provided in blade 1. (Ans. 9; Appeal Br. 5; Fukuno, col. 4, ll. 41-47). The
Examiner ascribes this fluidic connection as occurring at some unspecified
“junction”. (Ans. 9). Fukuno notes at several places in its disclosure that
the moving blade 1, in which cooling air passage 3 is provided, is “mounted
on a platform 2” or is “fixedly secured to the platform 2”. (Fukuno, col. 3,
ll. 54-55; col. 4, ll. 15-17). Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s position, in
order for holes 21, 22 to be in fluid communication with cooling air passage
3 of the blade, holes 21 and 22 must exit another face (apparently the top
face) of the platform.
The Examiner’s reference to there being some form of “junction” that
provides the fluidic connection is tantamount to an acknowledgement that
the holes 21, 22 must have exit openings other than those shown at the
trailing edge of the platform. Similarly, in attempting to demonstrate that
holes 21, 22 do not fit the Internet reference definition that a blind hole is “a
hole or cavity . . . that does not connect with other holes”, the Examiner
posits that the holes 21, 22, do connect with a passage 3, but not with
another hole or holes. (Ans. 3). While we believe, for the purposes of this
definition, a so-called “passage” would fall within the ambit of “other
holes”, even if it did not, in order for holes 21, 22 to connect to passage 3,
Appeal 2009-008401
Application 11/383,988

5
they must exit the platform at a position or location adjacent passage 3. As
such, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that holes 21, 22 are blind
holes (blind relief holes), even if only the “definition” in Appellants’
Specification is taken into account.
The rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and of claims 2, 4, 10,
12, 15, 18 and 20 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Fukuno, will not be
sustained.
The further rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) do not include any additional findings or any conclusions
that remedy the shortcomings of the teachings of Fukuno noted above. The
rejections of those claims will thus also not be sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Fukuno patent does not disclose a turbomachinery blade having a
platform with a blind relief hole disposed therein.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-008401
Application 11/383,988

6

mls

BAKER BOTTS, LLP
910 LOUISIANA STREET
ONE SHELL PLAZA
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-4995