null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 15, 2019

14767180 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2019)

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.
14/767,180 08/11/2015 James R. MURDOCK 71636US03 (U420653US3) 3289
135291 7590 10/15/2019
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
HU, XIAOTING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2019 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES R. MURDOCK
____________

Appeal 2019-002966
Application 14/767,1801
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–16, and 18–20. Final
Act. 1. Claims 6, 12, and 17 are cancelled. Id. at 2; Advisory Act. (mailed
Nov. 29, 2018). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002966
Application 14/767,180

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s invention “relates generally to gas turbine engines
and, more particularly, relates to sheaths for airfoils used in gas turbine
engines.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A sheath for an airfoil, the sheath comprising:
a solid member forming an outer edge, the outer edge
including a main portion and a projecting portion, the
projecting portion having a variable dimension;
a pressure side flank, the pressure side flank projecting
from the solid member opposite the outer edge;
a suction side flank, the suction side flank projecting
from the solid member opposite the outer edge, the pressure
side flank and the suction side flank forming a receiving cavity,
wherein a dimension of the projecting portion adjacent to the
main portion is equal to a dimension of the main portion
adjacent to the projecting portion and the dimension of the
projecting portion increases in a span-wise direction away from
the main portion and wherein the projecting portion is
configured to protect an area of the airfoil proximate to a root of
the airfoil, wherein the area of the airfoil extends axially
forward from the root.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Deal et al. (“Deal”) US 2011/0211967 A1 Sept. 1, 2011
Alexander US 2011/0229334 A1 Sept. 22, 2011
Murooka
(“Murooka ’065”)
US 2013/0323065 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
Murooka
(“Murooka ’736”)
WO 2012/090736 A1 July 5, 2012

Appeal 2019-002966
Application 14/767,180

3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9–11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murooka ’7363 and
Alexander.
Claims 2, 8, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Murooka ’736, Alexander, and Deal.

OPINION
Independent claim 1 calls for a sheath for an airfoil having a solid
member with a “projecting portion . . . configured to protect an area of the
airfoil proximate to a root of the airfoil, wherein the area of the airfoil
extends axially forward from the root.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Independent claims 7 and 16 call for an airfoil and a method of protecting a
leading edge of an airfoil, respectively, and each claim requires a sheath
with the same projecting portion as claim 1. See id. at 19, 20–21.
The Appellant argues that Murooka ’736 and Alexander fail to teach,
alone or in combination, the projecting portion as required by claim 1. Id.
at 6. More specifically, the Appellant argues:
Murooka does not teach or disclose at least “an area of the
airfoil proximate to a root of the airfoil, wherein the area of the
airfoil extends axially forward from the root” let alone a
“projecting portion [of the sheath that] is configured to protect”
the area of the airfoil [that] extends axially forward from the
root.

2 The rejection of claims 1–5, 7–16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite is withdrawn. Ans. 3.
3 The Examiner cites to Murooka ’065 as an English translation of
Murooka ’736. See Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2019-002966
Application 14/767,180

4
Id. at 6–7 (first bracket in original, second bracket added). Similarly, the
Appellant argues:
Alexander also does not teach or disclose at least “an area of the
airfoil proximate to a root of the airfoil, wherein the area of the
airfoil extends axially forward from the root” let alone a
“projecting portion [of the sheath that] is configured to protect”
the area of the airfoil [that] extends axially forward from the
root.
Id. at 8 (first bracket in original, second bracket added); see Reply Br. 5–6.
The Appellant argues the rejection of claims 7 and 16 for the same reasons.
See Appeal Br. 9–12, 13–16. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
The Examiner finds that Murooka ’736 teaches sheath 71 for airfoil
57. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that sheath 71 includes projecting
portion 75, 81, which “is configured to protect an area of the airfoil
proximate to a root of the airfoil,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 4–5 (citing
Murooka ’065 ¶ 50, Figs. 4–5).
The Examiner finds that Murooka ’736 fails to teach, “wherein the
area of the airfoil extends axially forward from the root,” as recited in
claim 1. Id. at 5. To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner turns to
Alexander. Id. (citing Alexander ¶¶ 13–15, Fig. 3). The Examiner explains
that Alexander teaches cutting back airfoil 11 at point 17. See Ans. 5–6.
Alexander references the portion that is removed from airfoil 11 as cut
back 17a. Alexander ¶ 15. Cut back 17a removes a portion of root 13 and a
portion of airfoil 11 that is at and/or near the leading edge of airfoil 11, but is
not a part of root 13. See Ans. 6; Alexander, Fig. 3. As shown in
Alexander’s Figure 3, the axial forward position of the remainder of root 13
is positioned behind the axial forward position of the remainder of airfoil’s
Appeal 2019-002966
Application 14/767,180

5
leading edge. See Ans. 6 (annotating Alexander, Fig. 3). Stated differently,
Alexander teaches in Figure 3 the use of an airfoil that has a portion that
extends axially forward from root 13. From this teaching, one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that the prior art includes a teaching of an
airfoil with an area that extends axially forward from the airfoil’s root.
In light of the foregoing, we determine that the Appellant’s argument
fails to persuasively explain why the combination of teachings of
Murooka ’736 and Alexander fails to result in a “projecting portion . . .
configured to protect an area of the airfoil proximate to a root of the airfoil,
wherein the area of the airfoil extends axially forward from the root,” as
recited in claims 1, 7, and 16. In this case, the Appellant argues that each of
Murooka ’736 and Alexander fails to teach the entirety of the foregoing
recitation. As explained by the Examiner, the Appellant argues against the
references individually, rather than what the combination of the teachings
from both references teaches one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 4.
Further, we note that although Alexander teaches an airfoil with a
sheath (e.g., sheath 21) (Alexander ¶¶ 7, 15), the Examiner’s rejection does
not rely on Alexander’s teaching of a sheath to modify the sheath of
Murooka ’736. Rather, as discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection is
based on a modification of Murooka ’736’s airfoil to have a cut back
portion, as taught by Alexander. See Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 4–6.
The Appellant argues “that in addition to the arguments made in
Appellant’s Appeal Brief, the proposed modifications to Mur[o]oka[ ’736]
would modify the blade of Mur[o]oka[ ’736] in a manner that would make it
inoperable for its intended use.” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added); see also id.
at 2–5, 6. This argument is provided for the first time in the Reply Brief and
Appeal 2019-002966
Application 14/767,180

6
is not responsive to an argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer. The
Appellant fails to show good cause for not presenting this argument in the
opening brief. Therefore, we will not consider this argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised
in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner’s answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will
not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless
good cause is shown.”); see also id. at § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“Except as
provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not
included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal.”).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 7,
and 16. For each of dependent claims 2–5, 8–11, 13–15, and 18–20, the
Appellant solely relies on the argument for the independent claim from
which the claim depends. Appeal Br. 9, 12–13, 16. For the reasons
discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 8–11,
13–15, and 18–20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–16, and 18–
20 is affirmed.

Appeal 2019-002966
Application 14/767,180

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7, 9–
11, 15, 16,
18, and 19
103(a) Murooka ’736 and
Alexander
1, 3–5, 7,
9–11, 15,
16, 18, and
19

2, 8, 13, 14,
and 20
103(a) Murooka ’736,
Alexander, and Deal
2, 8, 13,
14, and 20

Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–11,
13–16, and
18–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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