Ex Parte Suciu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2017

13283689 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 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.
13/283,689 10/28/2011 Gabriel L. Suciu 57636US01; 4762
67097-1575PUS1
54549 7590 09/12/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
WHITE, DWAYNE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABRIEL L. SUCIU, STEPHEN P. MURON,
IOANNIS ALVANOS, CHRISTOPHER M. DYE, BRIAN D. MERRY,
ARTHUR M. SALVE, and JAMES W. NORRIS
Appeal 2015-00723 81
Application 13/283,6892
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—16 and 21—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Feb. 13, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 16, 2015), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 19, 2015) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Oct. 23, 2014).
2 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-007238
Application 13/283,689
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a gas turbine engine, and
more particularly[,] to a rotor system therefor.” Spec. 1.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A rotor for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a rotor disk defined along an axis of rotation; and
a plurality of blades which extend from said rotor disk,
each of said plurality of blades extending from said rotor disk at
an interface, said interface defined along a spoke, and wherein
each blade includes a platform section and an airfoil section
extending out from said platform section, and wherein said
platform section includes at least one seal recess.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3—5, 7—10, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stiehler (WO 2010/099782 Al, pub. Sept. 10,
2010)3 and Mitchell (US 3,834,831, iss. Sept. 10, 1974).
II. Claims 1, 3—5, 7, 9, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bamberg (US 2010/0284817 Al, pub.
Nov. 11, 2010) and Mitchell.4
3 The Examiner relies on an English-language translation of the German
publication. We refer to the English-language translation as “Stiehler.”
Stiehler lacks consecutive page numbers. To remedy this oversight, we
delineate page one as the page having the heading “Notice.”
4 We treat as inadvertent the Examiner’s identification of the rejection as
being under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), instead of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
inadvertent error. See Final Act 6; see also Ans. 6.
2
Appeal 2015-007238
Application 13/283,689
III. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stiehler, Michell, and Groh (US 6,969,238 B2, iss. Nov. 29, 2005).
IV. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stiehler, Michell, and Carrier (US 6,666,653 Bl, iss. Dec. 23, 2003).
V. Claims 11, 13—16, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Stiehler, Chunduru (US 2008/0273982 Al, pub.
Nov. 6, 2008), and Mitchell.
VI. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bamberg, Mitchell, Ress (US 4,784,573, iss. Nov. 15, 1988).
VII. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stiehler, Chunduru, Mitchell, and Groh.
VIII. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stiehler, Mitchell, and Holzapfel (US 3,894,324, iss. July 15, 1975).
IX. Claim 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stiehler, Mitchell, and Afanasiev (US 2011/0305561 Al,
pub. Dec. 15, 2011).
X. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stiehler, Chunduru, Mitchell, and Holzapfel.
XI. Claims 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stiehler, Chunduru, Mitchell, and Afanasiev.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent Claim 1, and Dependent Claims 3—5, 7—10, 22, and 23
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Stiehler and Mitchell
3
Appeal 2015-007238
Application 13/283,689
because the combination of Stiehler and Mitchell does not disclose or
suggest a platform section includes at least one seal recess, as recited in
claim 1. See App. Br. 3^4. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner
acknowledges that Stiehler does not disclose a platform having “at least one
seal section,” as required by claim 1. Final Act. 3. But the Examiner relies
on Mitchell to cure the deficiency. Id. (citing Mitchell, Figs. 1, 2, 8; col. 3,
11. 3-6).
In this regard, the Examiner interprets the claimed “at least one seal
recess,” as recited in claim 1, to mean “a recess with the intended use of
holding a seal.” Ans. 18. The Examiner reasons that “[i]f the prior art
structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.”
Id. at 19.
Mitchell describes an arrangement for cooling turbine blade shanks
for gas turbines using a cooling fluid that escapes through a space or gap 40
between adjacent blade platforms 28. Mitchell, Abstract, col. 2,11. 45—47,
Fig. 2. Cooling fluid flows from a perforation 32 disposed in an end of
chamber 30. Id. at col. 2,11. 42 44. The cooling fluid passes around
downstream and upstream ends of a blade shank 20, and then escapes
through a gap 40 between adjacent blade platforms 28. Id. at col. 2,11. 44—
48, Fig. 2. A plurality of cylindrical buffer segments 44 may be disposed
between platforms 28 to prevent movement of blades 16 toward each other,
while “still permit[ting] the escape of cooling fluid therethough.” Id. at
col. 3,11. 3—6; see also id. at Figs. 2 and 8 (showing element 40 with a larger
diameter than element 44 to allow cooling fluid to escape).
The Examiner interprets MitcheTs gap 40 as the claimed recess seal.
Ans. 19. Specifically, the Examiner finds that gap 40 “not only is capable of
4
Appeal 2015-007238
Application 13/283,689
performing a sealing function, but also performs that function in conjunction
with element 44.” Id. In seeming contradiction of this finding, the
Examiner further finds that gap 40 “allows the escape of cooling fluid[,]”
and buffer 44 “provides a damping function while still permitting the escape
of cooling fluid.” Id. Because Mitchell’s gap 40 with buffer 44 provides for
an escape of cooling fluid, gap 40 is not capable of performing the intended
use of holding a seal, as required by claim 1. See, e.g., Reply Br. 4 (citing
http://dictionary.reference.com) (“seal” is generally understood as
preventing an escape or leak).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1, and dependent claims 3—5, 7—10, 22, and 23, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Rejection II
Independent Claim 1, and Dependent Claims 3—5, 7, 9, 22, and 23
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bamberg and Mitchell stands rejected based
on the same erroneous findings described in the above Rejection I section.
See Final Act. 7 (“Mitchell teaches wherein said platform section includes at
least one seal section.”) Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 3—5, 7, 9,
22, and 23, as unpatentable over Bamberg and Mitchell for the same reasons
set forth in the above Rejection I section.
5
Appeal 2015-007238
Application 13/283,689
Rejection V
Independent Claim 11, and Dependent Claims 13—16, 27, and 28
Independent claim 11 includes language substantially similar to the
language of independent claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stiehler, Chunduru, and
Mitchell stands rejected based on the same erroneous findings set forth with
respect to claim 1 in the above Rejection I section. See Final Act. 11.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
independent claim 11, and dependent claims 13—16, 27, and 28, for the same
reasons set forth in the above Rejection I section.
Rejections III, IV, VI-XI
Dependent Claims 2, 6, 10, 12, 21, 24—26, and 29
Each of claims 2, 6, 10, 12, 21, 24—26, and 29 depends from one of
independent claims 1 and 11. The rejections of these dependent claims does
not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejections of indendent claims 1
and 11. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2,
6, 10, 12, 21, 24—26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons
set forth above with respect to the independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—16 and 21—29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6