General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2021

2020002109 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2021)

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.
14/923,005 10/26/2015 Anthony Louis DiPietro JR. 283558-US-1 2626
124150 7590 01/28/2021
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr.
Ste. 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
PETERS, BRIAN O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2021 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):
OC.Prosecution@ge.com
mailroom@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTHONY LOUIS DIPIETRO JR. and
GREGORY JOHN KAJFASZ

Appeal 2020-002109
Application 14/923,005
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant, General Electric Company,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11,
13–15, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002109
Application 14/923,005

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The Specification “relates generally to turbomachinery compressors
and more particularly relates to rotor and stator airfoils of such
compressors.” Spec. ¶1.
The Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13–15, 18, and 19 are rejected. Final Act. 1.
No other claims are pending. Id.; Appeal Br. 13–15. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A compressor apparatus comprising:
an arcuate inner wall defining an inner flowpath surface;
an arcuate outer wall defining an outer flowpath surface;
an array of axial-flow stator airfoils extending between the
inner and outer flowpath surfaces, wherein the stator airfoils each
have a root, a tip, a leading edge, and a trailing edge, wherein the
stator airfoils have a chord dimension and are spaced apart by a
circumferential spacing, the ratio of the chord dimension to the
circumferential spacing defining a stator airfoil solidity
parameter; and
an array of airfoil-shaped splitter vanes extending from at
least one of the inner and outer flowpath surfaces, the splitter
vanes alternating with the stator airfoils, wherein the splitter
vanes each have a root, a tip, a leading edge, and a trailing edge;
wherein each of the splitter vanes is located approximately
midway between two adjacent stator airfoils;
wherein a chord dimension of the splitter vanes at the roots
thereof is 50% or less of the chord dimension of the stator airfoils
at the roots thereof and a span dimension of the splitter vanes is
less than the span dimension of the stator airfoils; and
wherein the splitter vanes are positioned such that their
trailing edges are at approximately the same axial position as the
Appeal 2020-002109
Application 14/923,005

3
trailing edges of the stator airfoils, relative to the inner and outer
flowpath surfaces.
Id. at 13.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The rejections before, both of which are pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103,
are as follows:
1. claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over Pon,2
Derclaye,3 and Sheets4 (Final Act. 4); and
2. claims 4 and 13–15 as unpatentable over Pon, Derclaye, Sheets,
and Crall5 (id. at 9).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellant argues the patentability claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 18, and 19
together. Appeal Br. 9–11. Accordingly, we choose claim 1 as
representative of all claims subject to this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner found that Pon discloses all of the subject matter of
claim 1 save “wherein a chord dimension of the splitter vanes at the roots
thereof is 50% or less of the chord dimension of the stator airfoils,” as
recited therein. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Pon Figs. 4–6). The Examiner found
that each of Derclaye and Sheets teaches the chord ratio limitation, with
Derclaye teaching it in the context of a compressor and Sheets teaching it in
the context of a turbine. Id. at 5 (citing Derclaye, Fig. 5; Sheets 31:32–45,

2 US 3,039,736, issued Aug. 30, 1954 (“Pon”).
3 US 2014/0328675 A1, published Nov. 6, 2014 (“Derclaye”).
4 US 5,152,661, issued Oct. 6, 1992 (“Sheets”).
5 US 6,478,545 B2, published Nov. 12, 2002 (“Crall”).
Appeal 2020-002109
Application 14/923,005

4
Fig. 11).6 The Examiner further found that, although Derclaye does not
articulate a reason for its ratio of chords, Sheets explicitly states that it
results in “‘good guidance’ of the flow.” Id. (quoting Sheets 31:46–48).
The Examiner concluded:
Given that the motivation of Sheets is only directed to an air
stream and those conditions are present in both a compressor and
a turbine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art, before the filing of the claimed invention to modify the
chord dimension of the splitter vane as taught by Pon by utilizing
a chord dimension that is 50% or less than the chord dimension
of the stator vane as taught by Derclaye and supported by Sheets,
in order to improve the flow guidance between the stator vanes.
Id. at 5–6.
Appellant argues that the proposed modification of shortening Pon’s
vane splitters (fences 37) such that their leading edges would be further
downstream “would change the principle of operation of Pon and/or render it
unsuitable for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 11. To support the
argument, Appellant asserts that “the stated purpose of the fences 37 of Pon
is to block secondary flow which inherently exists in the flow passage
beginning at a point forward of 50% of the chord length.” Id. (emphasis
added). Elsewhere in the Appeal Brief, however, Appellant states that Pon’s

6 In the Answer, the Examiner explains why the rejection did not rely on Pon
in view of merely Sheets, stating:

The only drawback to Sheets was that it was directed to a
turbine section which extracts energy from a flow rather than a
compressor section, as claimed. Trying to anticipate an
argument from the Appellant the Office also cited Derclay[e] to
show that even in compressor sections splitter vanes are used.
Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-002109
Application 14/923,005

5
“are provided to block or substantially reduce secondary flow of boundary
layer fluid to the low-pressure surfaces of the passages.” Id. at 9. Appellant
does not quote Pon or provide a citation thereto to support either of its
characterizations of the purpose of Pon’s fences. See id. at 9, 11.
The Examiner responds that “[t]he stated purpose of Pon is not to
block that boundary layer forward of the mid-chord line. It is to reduce the
losses associated with the turbulent portion of the boundary flow by
deflecting fluid in the passage.” Ans. 6. The Examiner further responds that
“the principle of operation in Pon is that by introducing the splitter vane or
‘fence’ between the main blades the [fence] funnels fluid to one side, which
accelerates the flow, which maintains the laminar condition of the flow for a
longer period of time, which reduces the length of turbulent flow and
reduces the vortices that cause inefficiencies.” Ans. 4–5 (citing Pon 2:29–
34, 2:44–49).7 Thus, according to the Examiner, “[t]he modification sought
by combining Pon with Sheets and Derclay[e] merely shortens the splitter

7 The Examiner-quoted portion of Pon provides:

secondary flow losses are largely reduced by inserting one or
more secondary flow control fences [the asserted splitter vanes]
on each shroud surface of a fluid deflecting passage to block the
secondary flow of boundary layer fluid towards the low pressure
surface of a passage. This is illustrated in FIGURE 2. . . . By
the use of the secondary flow control fences 23, the accumulation
of low momentum fluid on the low pressure surface of the fluid
deflecting passage is greatly reduced and the size and strength of
the passage vortices 25 are reduced with attendant reduction of
the secondary flow losses.
Pon 2:29–34, 2:44–49.
Appeal 2020-002109
Application 14/923,005

6
vane such that the leading edge of the splitter vane is at or behind the
midway point of the main blades.” Id. at 5.
The Examiner has the better position. First, Pon does not state its
fences block all secondary flow or secondary flow losses. It states that
“secondary flow losses are largely reduced” by the fences (37), which
“block” (or redirect) fluid that would otherwise flow to the low pressure
surfaces of the airfoil blades (33). Pon 2:29–34, 2:44–49. The Examiner’s
proposal to modify Pon’s fences by shortening them and having them start
further back in the axial direction may very well affect the amount of
secondary flow losses that the fences would reduce. Indeed, such a
modification “may increase the vortices/inefficiencies as compared to the
original fence described by Pon” as Appellant notes. Reply Br. 8. But such
a modification would not change the principle upon which the fences
operate. Nor would it render the fences unsuitable for their intended
purpose. The fences would still operate to redirect some amount of flow
away from the low pressure sides of the stator airfoils.
Even if such a modification were to increase the vortices/
inefficiencies as compared to the original fence described by Pon, that would
not negate the Examiner’s stated reasoning for making the modification: “to
produce ‘good guidance’ of flow.” Final Act. 5 (quoting Sheets 31:46–48).
See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another
benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of
one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost
and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In any event,
Appellant did not assert, let alone, establish that a skilled artisan would
Appeal 2020-002109
Application 14/923,005

7
expect the modification would increase the vortices/inefficiencies. See
Reply Br. 8 (stating that the modification “may increase the
vortices/inefficiencies as compared to the original fence described by Pon”
(emphasis added)).
Appellant also argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
look to Derclaye to modify Pon.” Appeal Br. 11. In making this argument,
Appellant does not challenge Derclaye’s status as analogous art. Id.
Appellant merely points out that Derclaye and Pon are different. Id. In
particular, Appellant argues that Derclaye’s “auxiliary airfoil”
(corresponding to the claim’s “splitter vane”) “forms a kind of duplex airfoil
with the main blade and to operate properly must be in a specific
relationship in fairly close proximity to the main blade,” whereas “the fences
37 of Pon are spaced well away from the adjacent blades.” Id. This
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection, as the
Examiner does not rely on Derclaye for the circumferential spacing between
its blades. The Examiner relies on Derclaye merely for its teaching of ratio
of chord lengths between the auxiliary and main blades. Final Act. 5.
Lastly, Appellant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
not be motivated to combine the teachings of Sheets or Derclaye with each
other, as again, Derclaye describes an auxiliary airfoil, while Sheets
describes a splitter intended to increase solidity of the blade row by being
placed intermediate to adjacent solid blades.” This argument does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection, as the rejection is not based
on combining Sheet and Derclaye with each other. The Examiner’s
rejection is to modify Pon “by utilizing a chord dimension that is 50% or
less than the chord dimension of the stator vane as taught by Derclaye and
Appeal 2020-002109
Application 14/923,005

8
supported by Sheets, in order to improve the flow guidance between the
stator vanes.” Final Act. 6.
Appellant filed a Reply Brief that contains multiple new arguments.
See Reply Br. 4 (“[I]t would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to apply the turbine elements described in Sheets to a compressor,
as set forth in claims 1 and 11.”), 5 (“Derclaye mentions stator blades and
auxiliary blades. The use of stator blades and auxiliary blades in a
compressor does not teach or suggest the use of an array of splitter vanes, as
set forth in claims 1 and 11.”), 6 (Sheet’s “use of part or half blades do not
teach or suggest an array of splitter vanes, as set forth in claim 1.”). We do
not consider these arguments timely for purposes of the present appeal. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Appellant has not apprised us of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, as well as that of claims 11–
13, which fall therewith.
Rejection 2
Appellant argues the patentability of claims 4 and 13–15 merely on
the basis of their ultimate dependency from either claim 1 or claim 11.
Appeal Br. 12. Thus, for reasons already discussed, we affirm the rejection
of claims 4 and 13–15.
Appeal 2020-002109
Application 14/923,005

9
SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 8,
11, 18, 19
103 Pon, Derclaye, Sheets 1, 2, 7, 8,
11, 18, 19

4, 13–15 103 Pon, Derclaye, Sheets,
Crall
4, 13–15
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 7,
8, 11, 13–
15, 18, 19

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED