Ex Parte Wiinikka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2017

14027733 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 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.
14/027,733 09/16/2013 Mark A. Wiinikka 0021-00080 2427
130674 7590 11/30/2017
Lightfoot & Alford PLLC (BHTI)
4100 Eldorado Parkway
Suite 100-271
McKinney, TX 75070
EXAMINER
LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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):
patentdocket@lightfootalford.com
lightfootalfordpllc @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK A. WIINIKKA, NATHAN P. GREEN,
ROBERT A. SELF, JR., and JOHN R. MCCULLOUGH
Appeal 2017-011590
Application 14/027,73 31
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-19. Final Office
Action (October 25, 2016) [hereinafter “Final Act.”]. Claims 6, 9, and 20
are canceled. Appeal Br. 8, 10 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (“Appellant”) is the applicant as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1
(March 27, 2017) [hereinafter “Appeal Br.”].
Appeal 2017-011590
Application 14/027,733
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed subject matter “relates to a rotor blade, as well as
a structural system for coupling the rotor blade to a rotor hub.”
Specification 11 (filed September 16, 2013) [hereinafter “Spec.”]. Claims 1
and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A rotor hub comprising:
a rotor yoke;
a grip member attached to the rotor yoke, the grip member
having an inboard portion, an upper extension, and a lower
extension; and
a rotor blade having a root end coupled to the upper
extension and the lower extension of the grip member with only
a first bolt, a second bolt, and a third bolt;
wherein the first bolt is located on a spanwise axis, the
second bolt is offset from the spanwise axis by a first chordwise
distance and is offset from the first bolt, away from the root end,
by a first spanwise distance, the third bolt is offset from the
spanwise axis, on an opposite side to the second bolt, by a second
chordwise distance and is offset from the first bolt, away from
the root end, by a second spanwise distance; and
wherein the root end includes a first taper and a second
taper that form a narrowing of the rotor blade and join at a
rounded portion that forms the most inboard part of the airfoil
member, wherein the first taper is symmetrical with the second
taper about a plane that is coincident with both the spanwise axis
and a central axis of the first hole, and wherein the second taper
extends from the rounded portion to a trailing portion of the root
end that extends substantially parallel to the spanwise axis, the
trailing portion of the root end being offset from a leading edge
portion of the rotor blade a shorter chordwise distance than a
chordwise distance between the leading edge portion of the rotor
blade and a trailing edge portion of the rotor blade.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2017-011590
Application 14/027,733
EVIDENCE
The Examiner’s decision relies upon the following evidence:
Sikorsky US 2,795,284 June 11, 1957
Gluhareff US 2,944,610 July 12, 1960
Covington US 3,392,788 July 16, 1968
Balch US 3,728,045 Apr. 17, 1973
Lucien US 3,807,897 Apr. 30, 1974
Seghal US 5,211,538 May 18, 1993
Schmaling US 5,562,416 Oct. 8, 1996
Chen US 2003/0127825 A1 July 10, 2003
Brocklehurst US 8,210,818 B2 July 3, 2012
Ahci-Ezgi US 8,985,958 B2 Mar. 24, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lucien, Sikorsky,
Brocklehurst, and Covington, as evidenced by Balch.
2. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lucien, Sikorsky, Brocklehurst, and Covington,
as evidenced by Balch, and Schmaling.
3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lucien, Sikorsky, Brocklehurst, and Covington, as evidenced
by Balch, Seghal, and Chen.
4. Claims 8, 10, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lucien, Sikorsky, Brocklehurst, and Covington,
as evidenced by Balch, and Gluhareff.
3
Appeal 2017-011590
Application 14/027,733
5. Claims 12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lucien, Sikorsky, Brocklehurst, and Covington,
as evidenced by Balch, and Ahci-Ezgi.
ISSUE
Appellant argues the claims subject to the first ground of rejection as a
group. Appeal Br. 4-5. We select claim 1 as representative of the group,
and the remaining claims, i.e., claims 2, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18, stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant does not
present any additional arguments in support of the patentability of the
dependent claims subject to the second through fifth grounds of rejection.
Appeal Br. 5. As such, the outcome of the appeal as to dependent claims 3-
5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 turns on our analysis of the patentability of claim
1 in light of the first ground of rejection.
The Examiner finds that Lucien discloses a rotor blade attached to a
rotor yoke via first, second, and third bolts that are located in the same
manner as recited in claim 1, but does not disclose that “the first, second,
and third bolts are the only bolts.” Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner finds that
Sikorsky discloses a rotor blade coupled to a rotor yoke with only three
bolts. Id. at 5, 9 (citing Sikorsky, Figs. 2 4). The Examiner determines that
it would have been obvious to modify Lucien to use only three bolts, as
taught by Sikorsky, “for the purpose of reducing weight of the rotor
assembly.” Id. at 5. The Examiner explains that “[i]n performing such a
modification, it would have been obvious to keep the radially outermost
4
Appeal 2017-011590
Application 14/027,733
group of three bolts identified above in Lucien for the purpose of
minimizing blade bending.” Id.2 * * 5
Appellant contends that the first ground of rejection should not be
sustained because the Examiner erred in finding that the combined teachings
of Lucien and Sikorsky would result in only three bolts where the first bolt is
closer to the root end of the rotor blade than the second and third bolts.
Appeal Br. 4. In particular, Appellant contends that the linear three bolt
pattern of Sikorsky is mutually exclusive from the claimed three bolt pattern.
Id. at 5.
The Examiner responds that “the disclosures of both Lucien and
Sikorsky serve as evidence that it is known to use both different numbers
and patterns of bolts. Furthermore, the bolting configuration of Lucien at
least includes the claimed pattern . . . while Sikorsky discloses the number
of bolts.” Examiner’s Answer 19 (June 15, 2017) [hereinafter “Ans.”]. “As
such, the combined teachings of the references are regarded as suggesting
both the number and pattern of bolts of the claimed bolting configuration.”
Id. The Examiner further explains:
The design process of a bolted connection must inherently
consider at least both the number and location of bolts, which
ultimately define a pattern of a bolting configuration, in the
course of routine engineering to satisfy various design
requirements such as sufficient securement, stress/bending
limits, etc. Accordingly, specifying both the number and/or
2 The Examiner further proposes to modify Lucien’s rotor blade with the
teachings of Brocklehurst and Covington. Final Act. 5-7. Appellant does
not contest the Examiner’s findings as to the scope and content of
Brocklehurst and Covington or the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Lucien’s rotor blade with their teachings. Appeal Br. 4-5.
5
Appeal 2017-011590
Application 14/027,733
pattern of a bolting configuration is well within the practice of
one of ordinary skill in the art. The modification over Lucien in
view of Sikorsky is proposed within this context, the resulting
combination of which produces the advantage of a reduction in
parts/bolts having the potential benefits of reductions in material
weight and cost, while also affording the related benefits of
minimizing cost and time associated with initial assembly and/or
maintenance/repair. Furthermore, the resulting combination
preserves at least some aspects of the bolting configuration of
Lucien known to have benefits - namely, the relative spacing of
bolts along both the longitudinal axis . . . and chordal axis . . .,
which is inherently resisting of both edgewise-bending . . . and
flapwise bending .... As such, the combination can be achieved
with a reasonable expectation of success and produces an
obvious benefit.
Id. at 19-20.
The issue before us is whether the combined teachings of Lucien and
Sikorsky as to the number and pattern of bolting configurations, and the
background knowledge of the design considerations taken into account by
one having ordinary skill in the art, would have led one to the number and
locations of the bolts as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Lucien shows rotor blades coupled to a rotor hub using a five bolt
configuration at the root end of the rotor blade. Lucien, Fig. 1. Lucien’s
configuration consists of a center bolt disposed along a spanwise axis of the
rotor blade and four bolts disposed in a rectangular pattern surrounding the
center bolt. Id. Two of the four bolts are aligned in a chord wise direction,
are offset from the spanwise axis by a chordwise distance, and are offset
from the center bolt away from the root end by a spanwise distance. Id. The
other two bolts are likewise aligned in a chordwise direction, are offset from
6
Appeal 2017-011590
Application 14/027,733
the spanwise axis in a chordwise direction, and are offset from the center
bolt toward the root end by a spanwise distance. Id.', see also Appeal Br. 5
(describing Lucien as depicting a central bolt within an additional
rectangular four bolt pattern).
Sikorsky shows rotor blades coupled to a rotor hub using a three bolt
configuration at the root end of the rotor blade. Sikorsky, Figs. 3,5. In
Sikorsky’s configuration, the bolts are aligned in a chordwise direction.
It was understood by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention that “[rjotor blade connections to the rotor hub are highly
loaded by centrifugal force and bending from lead/lag, flapping and torsion
moments.” Ahci-Ezgi, col. 1,11. 16-18 (description of related art). It was
also known by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention that “[i]n order to achieve a maximum of performance and safety,
the general design target is to reduce the rotor blade connection to a
minimum cross section for minimized drag and weight with fail safe features
and damage tolerant failure mode.” Id. at col. 1,11. 20-24.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings as to the scope and content of
Lucien and Sikorsky. Further, we adopt as our own the Examiner’s
reasoning as to why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led
to modify Lucien, in light of the teaching of Sikorsky, in the manner
claimed. Final Act. 5; Ans. 18-21. In particular, the Examiner provided a
reason, viz, to reduce weight while minimizing blade bending, that would
have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to modify the
bolt configuration of Lucien, based on the teaching of Sikorsky, in the
manner claimed. Those reasons were based on design considerations taken
7
Appeal 2017-011590
Application 14/027,733
into account by those of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art of record
supports the Examiner’s findings that these design considerations were well
known in the art at the time of the invention.
Based on the well-known design considerations in the art to minimize
weight and the general knowledge of one having ordinary skill in art as to
the centrifugal forces and bending forces incident on rotor blade
connections, we find that the Examiner provided an adequate explanation
based on rational underpinnings as to why one having ordinary skill would
have been led, in light of Sikorsky, to modify the number of bolts in Lucien
to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[T]he analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id.
Appellant’s assertion that Sikorsky’s “linear three bolt pattern is
mutually exclusive from the claimed three bolt pattern” does not address the
Examiner’s reasoning that in modifying Lucien to use only three bolts to
reduce weight, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
“keep the radially outermost group of three bolts” in Lucien to “minimiz[e]
blade bending.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 19-20 (the resulting
combination has the benefit of reduction in material weight while also
8
Appeal 2017-011590
Application 14/027,733
preserving the aspects of relative spacing of the bolts along the longitudinal
and chordal axes of Lucien for resisting both edgewise and flapwise
bending). This reasoning finds support in the background knowledge of one
having ordinary skill in the art; Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. For these reasons, we sustain
the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-19 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9