Ex Parte Parkos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

13366923 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 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.
13/366,923 02/06/2012 Joseph Parkos JR. PA-0016930-US 8719
11943 7590
0""Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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):
uspto @ osheagetz. com
shenry @ osheagetz. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH PARKOS JR., JAMES O. HANSEN,
CHRISTOPHER A. HERTEL, ANDREW J. MURPHY,
ASHLEY P. PHILLIPS, and JAY T. ABRAHAM1
Appeal 2017-004946
Application 13/366,923
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 9-12, and 15-17. Br. 3. Claims 3, 4, and 6-
8 are cancelled, and claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-004946
Application 13/366,923
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. An electroformed sheath for protecting an airfoil of a gas
turbine engine, comprising:
a sheath body having a leading edge;
a pressure side wall and an opposed suction side wall of
the sheath body, which side walls meet at the leading edge and
extend away from the leading edge to define a cavity between
the side walls;
a head section of the sheath body between the leading
edge and the cavity; and
a mandrel insert positioned between the pressure side
wall and suction side wall;
wherein the mandrel insert includes a cross-sectional
geometry that is generally wedge-shaped;
wherein the mandrel insert is made of a non-metallic
composite;
wherein the mandrel insert is a honeycomb-like structure;
and
wherein the mandrel insert is defined by a length and a
width, and wherein the width of the mandrel insert is greater
than a thickness of the sheath body pressure side wall or a
thickness of the sheath body suction side wall.
Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carter (US 3,923,421, iss. Dec. 2, 1975) and Applicant’s
Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Carter, AAPA, and Hong (US 2012/0163981 Al, pub. June 28, 2012), or
Underhill, Jr. (US 4,275,994, iss. June 30, 1981) (“Underhill”).
2
Appeal 2017-004946
Application 13/366,923
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carter, AAPA, and Smith (US 2010/0014964 Al, pub.
Jan. 21,2010).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Carter, Smith, and AAPA.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carter and either of Hong or Underhill.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carter, either of Hong or Underhill, and Smith.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Carter, Smith, and Hong.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10
Rejected Over Carter and AAPA
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 as a group. Br. 7. We select
claim 1 as representative, with claims 2, 9, and 10 standing or falling with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Carter teaches a sheath
body disposed along leading edge 16 of helicopter blade 10 as anti-abrasion
outer strip 34 and a mandrel insert (leading edge core 24) that comprises a
honeycomb foam and non-metallic material as claimed. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds that mandrel insert 24 has a length and width, and the width
is greater than a thickness of the sheath body pressure side and suction side
walls. Id. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to form
mandrel insert 24 of a composite honeycomb foam as taught by Appellants’
Admitted Prior Art to provide increased strength with low weight. Id. at 5.
3
Appeal 2017-004946
Application 13/366,923
Appellants argue that Carter lacks a mandrel insert having a width that
is greater than a thickness of the pressure side wall or the suction side wall.
Br. 7. In particular, Appellants argue that the dimensions described in Carter
at column 2, lines 45—48 merely pertain to woven screen 70 and are not
described in relation to the alleged pressure side wall or suction side wall of
Carter, and the AAPA does not remedy these deficiencies in Carter. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
honeycomb foam core 24 of Carter to teach a mandrel insert and Figure 2 to
illustrate mandrel insert 24 with a greater width than the thickness of either
side wall of the sheath body (outer strip 34). Final Act. 4. Although specific
dimensions are not disclosed in Carter, based on the relative thicknesses that
are illustrated in Figure 2, a skilled artisan would understand Figure 2 to
disclose core 24 with a greater thickness than the thickness of the walls of
anti-abrasion outer strip 34 as claimed. See In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911,
914 (CCPA 1979) (drawing in a utility patent can disclose claimed features
even if a feature shown in the drawing is unintended or unexplained in the
specification). The knowledge to be discerned from Figure 2 is supported by
Carter’s teaching that core 24 is a honeycomb foam structure that connects
principal load carrying structural spar 20 to skin 26, whereas outer strip 34 is
an electro-formed, anti-abrasion strip that is bonded to the exterior of skin
26. Carter, 2:4-26, 3:14-16. The Examiner does not rely on a thickness of
woven screen 70, taught at column 2, lines 45^18, to teach the claimed
mandrel insert width or side wall thickness. See Ans. 5; Final Act. 4.
Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error in this regard.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, and 10.
4
Appeal 2017-004946
Application 13/366,923
Dependent Claims 5, 11, and 12
Rejected Over Carter, AAPA, and Hong, and Underhill/Smith
The Examiner finds that Hong and Underhill teach features of claim 5,
and Smith teaches features of claims 11 and 12. Final Act. 5-7. Appellants
argue that these references do not cure Carter’s failure to teach a mandrel
insert, as argued for claim 1, from which these claims depend. See Br. 7-8.
Because Carter teaches the claimed mandrel insert, as discussed above
for claim 1, there are no deficiencies for Hong, Underhill, or Smith to cure in
this regard. Thus, we sustain the rejections of claims 5, 11, and 12.
Claim 15
Rejected Over Carter, Smith, and AAPA
Independent claim 15 recites an airfoil with an electro formed sheath
and a mandrel insert with a width greater than a thickness of the sheath body
side walls as in claim 1. The Examiner relies on Carter to teach the claimed
mandrel insert and width, as for claim 1. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 4-5, 7.
Appellants argue the claimed mandrel insert is distinguishable over
Carter, Smith, and AAPA at least for the reasons argued for claim 1. Br. 8.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 15.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10
Rejected Over Carter and Hong or Underhill
The Examiner again relies on Carter to teach a mandrel insert in claim
1. Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 7-8. Appellants argue that Hong and Underhill fail
to remedy Carter’s failure to teach a mandrel insert in claim 1. Br. 8. This
argument is not persuasive because Carter teaches a mandrel insert as recited
in claim 1 as discussed above for the previous rejection of claim 1. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10.
5
Appeal 2017-004946
Application 13/366,923
Claims 11 and 12
Rejected Over Carter, Hong or Underhill, and Smith
Appellants’ argument that Hong, Underhill, and Smith fail to cure the
deficiencies of Carter for claim 1 (Br. 8) are not persuasive because there are
no deficiencies to cure. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12.
Claims 15—17
Rejected Over Carter, Smith, and Hong
The Examiner relies on Carter to teach a mandrel insert in claim 15
with a width greater than a thickness of the sheath side walls as for claim 1.
Final Act. 12; Ans. 7. Appellants argue that Smith and Hong fail to remedy
the deficiencies of Carter with respect to claim 15. Br. 9. This argument is
not persuasive because Carter teaches a mandrel insert as recited in claim 15
for the reasons discussed above. Thus, there are no deficiencies for Smith
and Hong to cure in this regard, and we also sustain the rejection of claims
15-17.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 9-12, and 15-17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6