Ex Parte STEIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

14061095 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/061,095 10/23/2013
30024 7590 12/21/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexander STEIN
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.
KDW-839-2396 1050
EXAMINER
LAMBERT, WAYNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER STEIN,
GLEN ARTHUR MACMILLAN, THOMAS BRUNT, and
JOE TIMOTHY BROWN
Appeal2018-004451
Application 14/061,095
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-11 and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellant is General Electric Company, which the Appeal Brief
indicates is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004451
Application 14/061,095
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gas turbine nozzle trailing edge fillet.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A nozzle segment for a gas turbine engine, comprising:
an arcuate inner endwall having an inner platform;
an arcuate outer endwall; and
an airfoil body attached to and extending outwardly from
the inner platform to the arcuate outer endwall, the airfoil body
being attached to the arcuate outer endwall and including
opposed pressure and suction sidewalls extending between a
leading edge and a trailing edge of the airfoil body,
the airfoil body including a first inner fillet blending into
the inner platform, the first inner fillet having a height, and
the airfoil body including a first trailing edge fillet
blending into the inner platform at a trailing edge of the airfoil
body, the first trailing edge fillet having a height greater than
the height of the first inner fillet.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gregory
Sasaki
Lee
Gray
us 4,826,400
us 6,079,948
US 7,371,046 B2
US 2016/0003048 Al
REJECTIONS
May 2, 1989
June 27, 2000
May 13, 2008
Jan. 7,2016
(I) Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gray and Sasaki.
2
Appeal2018-004451
Application 14/061,095
(II) Claims 3, 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gray, Sasaki, and Gregory.
(III) Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gray, Sasaki, and Lee. 2
OPINION
Rejection (I)
The Examiner finds that Gray discloses most of the elements recited
in claim 1, including an airfoil body including a "first inner fillet (i.e. 54)
having a height (i.e. such as 20% of the height of the blade)." Final Act. 4
(citing Gray ,r,r 11, 38--42). The Examiner also finds that Gray teaches an
arcuate inner endwall (platform 36) and "an airfoil body 32 attached to and
extending outwardly from the inner platform 36 to an arcuate outer endwall
(i.e. outer casing as seen in figure 1, not labeled)." Id. The Examiner
further finds that Gray teaches "the airfoil body 32 including a first trailing
edge fillet ... having a height (i.e., such as 20% of the height of the blade ..
. )." Id. (citing Gray ,r,r 38--42). The Examiner acknowledges that Gray
does not teach the first trailing edge fillet having a height greater than the
height of the first inner fillet. Id. The Examiner also acknowledges that
Gray does not teach the airfoil body attached to the arcuate outer end wall.
Id. The Examiner relies on Sasaki to teach a first trailing edge fillet (38a)
with a height of up to 33% of the length of the blade, including in
connection with both a moving blade and a stationary blade that is attached
to both an arcuate inner endwall and arcuate outer endwall. Id. at 4--5 (citing
2 The heading for this rejection does not list Sasaki as an applied reference,
but the body of the rejection relies on Sasaki. See Final Act. 11-14.
3
Appeal2018-004451
Application 14/061,095
Sasaki 10:36-50, Figs. 15, 17). The Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious "to modify the blade segment of Gray having an arcuate outer
endwall" so that the blade is "attached to the arcuate outer endwall, as taught
by Sasaki" and to incorporate a first trailing edge fillet having a height
greater than the height of the first inner fillet as taught by Sasaki in the
structure of Gray "in order to improve the airfoil cascade efficiency and
keep swirl to a low level." Id. (citing Sasaki, Abstract, 1:38---63, 3:47-50).
The Examiner maintains that Sasaki teaches that its blades are applicable to
stationary as well as moving blades and, therefore, Sasaki's teachings may
be applied to the system taught by Gray. Ans. 5 ( citing the "Field of the
Invention" section of Sasaki).
Appellant contends that the Examiner made an error in fact-finding.
Appellant argues that the portion of Sasaki the Examiner cites in the Answer
is silent regarding stationary blades. Reply Br. 5. Appellant has the better
position on this point. Sasaki's Field of Invention states:
The present invention relates to a blade for an axial fluid
machine, and more specifically, to blades for an axial fluid
machine for lowering a secondary flow loss which is caused
when a blade cascade disposed along the axial direction of a
rotational shaft passes through a working fluid to thereby
improve the efficiency [ of] the blade cascade.
Sasaki 1:7-13 (emphasis added). Contrary to the Examiner's finding, this
disclosure in Sasaki ( cited by the Examiner in support of the finding that
Sasaki's fillet-like structure is applicable to stationary blades) does not refer
to stationary blades. Accordingly, we find persuasive Appellant's assertion
of error in the Examiner's findings of fact. As the Examiner's rationale for
modifying the structure of Gray to obtain the benefit of the fillet-shaped
structures 3 8 disclosed by Sasaki is based on an unsupported finding of fact,
4
Appeal2018-004451
Application 14/061,095
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 5-9 depending
therefrom, as unpatentable over Gray and Sasaki.
Re} ections (11)-(111)
The Examiner's use of Gregory and Lee does not remedy the
deficiencies discussed above regarding Rejection (I). See Final Act. 9-14.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejections (II) and (III).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 and 14 is reversed.
REVERSED
5