Ex Parte Stiehler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13202010 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
M078 P02341-US 4977
EXAMINER
SEABE, JUSTIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/202,010 08/17/2011
3017 7590 09/28/2017
BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD.
101 DYER STREET
5THFLOOR
PROVIDENCE, RI02903
Frank Stiehler
09/28/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK STIEHLER
Appeal 2016-007953
Application 13/202,010
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 8—14, and 17. Claims 3—7, 15, and 16 were canceled
during prosecution. See Claims Appx. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-007953
Application 13/202,010
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claims are directed generally “to a rotor for a
turbomachine, in particular for a gas turbine, having a basic rotor body and a
plurality of blades.” Spec., p. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A rotor (10) for a turbomachine, having a basic rotor body
(12) and a plurality of blades (14),
is hereby characterized in that
at least one damping element (24) is provided in the
circumferential direction between adjacent blades (14) of the
rotor (10),
further characterized in that the blades (14) have a blade
neck (18) joining respective blades to the basic rotor body (12),
further characterized in that the blade necks (18) have
extensions (22) that extend from the blade necks in the axial
direction of the rotor body (12), and the extensions (22) together
form a shroud that bounds by its radially outward-pointing
surface an annular gas flow channel of the turbomachine,
further characterized in that the blade necks (18) of
adjacent blades (14) are distanced from one another in the
circumferential direction defining a free space between the blade
necks (18),
further characterized in that the at least one damping
element (24) is respectively disposed in the free space between
adjacent blade necks (18), each damping element being an
individual, unitary piece;
the damping element having an outer surface, the outer
surface defined by an upper surface, a first end wall, and a second
end wall; the first end wall, the upper surface, and the second end
wall being connected to one another, further characterized in that
the outer surface of the damping element (24) forms a seal of the
free space between adjacent blade necks (18) relative to the gas
flow channel of the turbomachine, the first end wall and the
second end wall of the damping element each being adapted to
the shape of the adjacent blade necks in the region of the
extensions;
2
Appeal 2016-007953
Application 13/202,010
the first end wall and the second end wall each extending
between the adjacent blade necks, so that the damping element
engages a side surface of each extension on the adjacent blade
necks, and so that each of the first and second end walls of the
damping element (24) engages a side surface on each adjacent
blade neck at a location that is radially inward of the extensions
(22); and wherein the upper surface of the damping element (24)
faces radially outwardly and is in direct contact with the flow
channel, and the damping element prevents the free space
between the adjacent blade necks from acting negatively on the
flow ratios or aerodynamic conditions in the turbomachine;
whereby, in adjacent blades, vibrations are transferred
from the extensions of a first blade selected from the adjacent
blades through the damping element to the extensions of a second
blade selected from the adjacent blades.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Crane US 4,175,912 Nov. 27, 1979
Chivers US 7,445,433 B2 Nov. 4, 2008
Morris US 8,070,448 B2 Dec. 6, 2011
Arrieta DE 10 2007 037 208 A1 Feb. 19, 2009
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 8—12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Morris and Crane. Ans. 2.
Claims 2 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morris, Crane, and Chivers. Ans. 3.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morris, Crane, and Arrieta. Ans. 6.
3
Appeal 2016-007953
Application 13/202,010
ANALYSIS
Appellant originally argued claims 1 and 8—11 as a group (App. Br. 8)
and relied upon the argument for these claims for the rejections of claims 2
and 17. Id. at 16. Although Appellant argued the rejection of claims 12 and
14 separately (see id. at 12—16) and also relied upon this argument for the
rejection of claim 13 (see id. at 17), as the Examiner points out, these
arguments relate to a rejection from earlier in prosecution that was not
maintained and claims 12 and 14 were subsequently rejected as unpatentable
over Morris and Crane. Ans. 7, 8. Appellant, in its Reply Brief, did not
further argue the rejection of these claims separate from its argument of
independent claim 1, from which each of claims 12—14 depend.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of all pending claims and
the rejections of all claims stand or fall with our disposition of claim 1. Ans.
7.
Appellant’s main arguments deal with the combination of Morris and
Crane. See, e.g., Reply Br. \-A. In general, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellant merely attacks the references individually without proper
consideration of the teachings of the combination as a whole. Ans. 7. For
example, Appellant argues that “[t]he fact that Crane teaches a cured filled
epoxy damping element that is capped off by separate member 20 . . .
teaches away from the asserted combination” because the claims require a
unitary damping element. Reply Br. 4. As the Examiner points out,
however, Crane is merely utilized for its teaching of engaging the damper
with the blade neck and not for any unitary construction. See Ans. 7.
Morris is supplied for the unitary construction aspects. Id.
4
Appeal 2016-007953
Application 13/202,010
Furthermore, Appellant appears to mischaracterize the Examiner’s
application of Morris by asserting that the rejection seeks to “extend
[Morris’] damping element radially inward to also reside between the blade
necks.” Reply Br. 4. Morris’ damping element already extends radially
inward, but does not extend circumferentially in a manner so as to contact
the blade neck to provide further damping. See Morris Fig. 4. Because
Morris’ damping element already extends radially inward, the Examiner
utilizes Crane solely for its teaching that it was known in the prior art to
include damping features that are radially inward of the blades and contact
the blade necks as claimed, thus modifying Morris’ radially inward
extension to extend circumferentially so as to contact the blade necks. Ans.
7.
Appellant also argues that there are deficiencies associated with
epoxies both in their curing as well as in their potential use at high
temperatures as taught in Crane. See Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 11. Again, the
Examiner does not propose the use of epoxies in the formation of the
damping element as taught by Crane. The Examiner merely proposes to
extend the already existing, radially inward portion of Morris’ damping
element so as to contact the blade necks and thus provide interior damping
as taught in Crane. As such, Appellant’s arguments mainly attack aspects of
the references for which they were not used. Furthermore, Appellant
provides no evidence that this combination would be improper and relies
solely on unpersuasive attorney argument against the rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as
the rejections of claims 2, 8—14, and 17.
5
Appeal 2016-007953
Application 13/202,010
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1, 2, 8—14, and 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) (2009).
AFFIRMED
6