Ex Parte Richter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13816269 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/816,269 02/26/2013
13897 7590 03/30/2018
Abel Law Group, LLP
8911 N. Capital of Texas Hwy
Bldg 4, Suite 4200
Austin, TX 78759
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karl-Hermann Richter
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
6570-P50044 2167
EXAMINER
KEBEA, JESSICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
mail@Abel-IP.com
hmuensterer@abel-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARL-HERMANN RICHTER
Appeal2017-007099 1
Application 13/816,2692
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 16-18 and 20-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
August 25, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed April 3, 2017), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed February 7, 2017), Advisory Action
("Adv. Act.," mailed June 8, 2016), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed February 26, 2016).
2 Appellant identifies MTU Aero Engines GmbH (now MTU Aero Engines
AG) as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007099
Application 13/816,269
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed "invention relates to a method for connecting a
turbine blade or vane to a turbine disk or a turbine ring for a turbine stage of
a turbomachine, in particular of a thermal gas turbine" (Spec. 1, 11. 4---6).
Appellant identifies claim 16 as the only independent claim on appeal
(App. Br. 3). 3 Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
16. A method for connecting a turbine blade or vane to a
turbine disk or a turbine ring, wherein the method comprises:
(a) supplying an additive suitable for fusion welding to
a surface of the turbine blade or vane,
(b) melting the additive on the surface of the turbine
blade or vane, with incipient melting of the surface,
( c) allowing the additive and the surface to solidify to
form a connecting body on the turbine blade or vane; and
( d) connecting the turbine blade or vane to the turbine
disk or the turbine ring by directly fusion welding the connecting
body to the turbine disk or the turbine ring.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 16-18, 28, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Meier (US 7,634,854 B2, iss. Dec. 22, 2009)
and Bewlay et al. (US 2007/0003416 Al, pub. Jan. 4, 2007) ("Bewlay").
3 Claim 35 recites a turbine stage for a turbine of a turbomachine having a
turbine disk or turbine ring connected to a turbine blade or vane by "a
connecting body formed on the turbine blade or vane by the method of
claim 16." Claim 3 5, thus, appears to have been drafted in a "shorthand"
format to avoid rewriting the particulars of the method of claim 16, and not
to further define the claimed method recited in claim 16 - an indication that
claim 35 is an independent claim. See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144,
1145 (BPAI 1992). This does not, however, affect our analysis here.
2
Appeal2017-007099
Application 13/816,269
II. Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Meier, Bewlay, and Singh et al. (US 2008/0182017 Al,
pub. July 31, 2008) ("Singh").
III Claims 16-18, 20, 25-27, 35, and 36 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smarsly et al.
(WO 2010/043209 A2, pub. Apr. 22, 2010)4 ("Smarsly"), Morris et al.
(US 2011/0135952 Al, pub. June 9, 2011) ("Morris"), and Bamberg et al.
(DE 102007050142 Al, pub. Oct. 19, 2007) 5 ("Bamberg").
IV. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smarsly, Morris, Bamberg, and Brown et al.
(US 6,355,086 B2, iss. Mar. 12, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Re} ections I and II
Claims 16-18, 28, and 31-35
In rejecting independent claim 16 under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over
Meier and Bewlay, the Examiner cites Meier as disclosing "form[ing] a
connecting body [i.e., thickened region 20, as shown, for example, in
Figure 1 d of Meier] on the turbine blade or vane" and "connecting the
turbine blade or vane to the turbine disk or the turbine ring by directly fusion
welding the connecting body to the turbine disk or the turbine ring," i.e.,
steps (c) and (d), as recited in claim 16 (Final Act. 2-3 (citing Meier, col. 3,
4 US 2011/0305578 Al, published December 15, 2011, is used as the
English language equivalent of WO 2010/043209 A2. See Final Act. 7.
5 US 2010/0284817 Al, published November 11, 2010, is used as the
English language equivalent of DE 102007050142 Al. See Final Act. 7.
3
Appeal2017-007099
Application 13/816,269
11. 25-28)). The Examiner acknowledges that Meier does not disclose how
thickened region 20 is formed (id. at 3). However, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of Appellant's invention to fabricate thickened region 20, i.e., the
claimed connecting body, using the same laser powder build-up welding
method that Meier discloses is used in preparing a thickened region (i.e.,
thickened region 13, as shown, for example in Figure la of Meier) on the
turbine disk (id.; see also Ans. 3--4 ).
The Examiner also concedes that Meier is silent as to the specific
steps involved in laser powder build-up welding (Final Act. 3; see also
Ans. 4 ). The Examiner cites Bew lay to cure the deficiency of Meier
(Final Act. 3--4 (finding that Bew lay discloses "the specific details of build-
up welding laser beam cladding," i.e., steps (a}-(c) of claim 16)). And, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of Appellant's invention "that the buildup welding
method as disclosed by Meier would include the method steps (b) and ( c) as
disclosed by Bewlay" (Final Act. 3--4).
Appellant argues that the rejection cannot be sustained at least
because even assuming, for the sake of argument, that thickened region 20
qualifies as the claimed "connecting body," Meier does not disclose or
suggest "directly fusion welding the connecting body," i.e., thickened
region 20, to the turbine disk or the turbine ring, as called for in claim 16
(App. Br. 7-10).
Responding to Appellant's argument, the Examiner asserts that Meier
discloses that thickened region 20 is formed on turbine blade 16, and
"subsequently joined to rotor disk 12 by employing a laser powder build up
4
Appeal2017-007099
Application 13/816,269
welding process" (Ans. 3-5 (citing Meier, col. 3, 11. 22-28, Figs. Id and
le)). And the Examiner takes the position that "[l]aser powder build up
welding is a form of fusion welding as evidenced in NPL document Modem
Surface Technology" (id. at 3).
We find that Appellant has the better position. The Examiner has not
pointed to any disclosure of "fusion welding" in Meier or Bew lay. And
there is no evidence of record that laser powder build-up welding, which the
Examiner ostensibly maintains is used to weld thickened region 20 (i.e., the
claimed "connecting body") to the rotor disk, is "fusion welding," as called
for in claim 16.
We have considered the Examiner's annotated version of Table 18.1
of Modern Surface Technology (included with the Advisory Action). On its
face, Table 18.1 merely depicts a classification of build-up welding
technologies, without any additional contextual or explanatory disclosure. A
classification of build-up welding technologies is not, in our view, evidence
that the "fusion welding" of process step ( d) of claim 16 encompasses the
laser powder build-up welding disclosed in Meier. As Appellant points out
(App. Br. 9), there is nothing in the Specification to suggest that the claimed
"fusion welding" encompasses build-up welding (to the contrary, the build-
up of the connecting body in steps (a}-(c) suggests that the fusion welding in
step ( d) does not involve additional build-up).
Bewlay does not remedy this deficiency in Meier. For example, there
is no evidence that the additive disclosed in Bewlay, i.e., "consumable
powder or wire" (Bewlay i-f 65), is suitable for fusion welding.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meier and
5
Appeal2017-007099
Application 13/816,269
Bewlay. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 35 and dependent clams 17, 18, 28, and 31-34.
Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.").
Claims 2 9 and 3 0
The Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 29 and 30 as
unpatentable over the combination of Meier, Bew lay, and Singh does not
rely on Singh in any way that would remedy the deficiency in the rejection
of claim 16 as unpatentable over Meier and Bewlay. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent
claims 29 and 30 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
independent claim 16.
Rejections III and IV
Claims 16-18, 20, 25-27, 35, and 36
In rejecting independent claim 16 under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over
Smarsly, Morris, and Bamberg, the Examiner cites Smarsly as disclosing
"supplying an additive suitable for fusion welding to a surface of the turbine
blade or vane"; "form[ing] a connecting body [i.e., Smarsly's adapter
element 18] on the turbine blade or vane"; and "connecting the turbine blade
or vane to the turbine disk or the turbine ring," as recited in steps (a), (c) and
( d) of claim 16 (Final Act. 7-8). However, the Examiner acknowledges that
Smarsly does not disclose "melting the additive on the surface of the turbine
blade or vane, with incipient melting of the surface," i.e., step (b) of
claim 16 (id. at 8). The Examiner cites Morris to cure the deficiency of
6
Appeal2017-007099
Application 13/816,269
Smarsly (id. (finding that Morris discloses "(b) melting the additive on the
surface of the turbine blade or vane, with incipient melting of the surface" at
paragraph 39)). And the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant's
invention to modify the Smarsly method to "include the specific method
steps of laser powder deposit welding (Steps b and c) as disclosed by Morris
to build the connecting body (Smarsly [adapter element] 18)" because "the
process disclosed by Morris is a well-known method of forming turbine
parts" (id.). 6
Appellant argues that the obviousness rejection cannot be sustained at
least because Morris is not concerned with the formation of a connecting
body on a turbine blade or vane (App. Br. 16); instead, Morris discloses that
"a component of a turbine is produced in one piece, i.e. not by producing a
component (e.g., a blade) and thereafter forming a [connecting] body on the
component" (id. at 17).
We agree with Appellant. Morris is directed to fabricating a
component by depositing metal powder over a seed crystal (Morris i-f 6).
Paragraph 39 of Morris, on which the Examiner relies, discloses depositing
6 The Examiner also acknowledges that "Smarsly connects the connecting
body (18) via friction welding," and cites Bamberg as disclosing "fusion
welding the connecting body to the turbine rotor or disk" (Final Act. 8). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of Appellant's invention "to employ fusion
welding for directly connecting the connecting body and the turbine rotor
base as connecting body (18) and the turbine rotor base (12) as Bamberg
discloses the known technique of fusion welding connecting body (18) and a
turbine rotor/disk where both comprise materials suitable for fusion
welding" (id. at 8-9).
7
Appeal2017-007099
Application 13/816,269
"additional metal powder to melt or sinter at least a portion of the additional
metal powder" so that "[ t ]he additional metal powder metallurgically bonds
to the previously deposited layer." But, the Examiner does not point to any
disclosure in Morris that a surface of a turbine blade is melted together with
an additive, as called for in step (b) of claim 16. And the Examiner does not
rely on Smarsly or Bamberg in any way that would cure this deficiency in
Morris.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smarsly, Morris,
and Bamberg. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 35 and dependent clams 17, 18, 20, 25-27, and 36.
Claims 21-24
The Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 21-24 as unpatentable
over the combination of Smarsly, Morris, Bamberg, and Brown does not rely
on Brown in any way that would remedy the deficiency in the rejection of
claim 16 as unpatentable over of Smarsly, Morris, and Bamberg. Therefore,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
dependent claims 21-24 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
independent claim 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 16-18 and 20-36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
8