UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2020001856 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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.
15/013,308 02/02/2016 Conway CHUONG 67097-2153PUS2;
63773US02
5486
54549 7590 01/04/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CROHN, MARK I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CONWAY CHUONG
____________

Appeal 2020-001856
Application 15/013,308
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction 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 United Technologies Corporation as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001856
Application 15/013,308

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a design method associated with a throat
section of a gas turbine engine. Spec. ¶ 2, claim 1. In operation of a gas
turbine engine, combustion gases are communicated through a throat
opening that extends between adjacent vanes of a vane assembly. Id. ¶ 5.
The throat area affects the pressure ratio and mass flow rate associated with
the engine, id., which may influence engine efficiency, id. ¶ 47. The
Specification describes a calculation technique for calculating throat area,
such as on a CAD model of a section of a gas turbine engine. Id. ¶¶ 7–8. A
design characteristic of the section is modified based on the calculated throat
area. Id. ¶ 58. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method associated for use with a gas turbine engine,
comprising:
calculating a throat area of a vane segment of the gas
turbine engine by radially dividing the throat area into a
plurality of sections, calculating an individual area associated
with each of the plurality of sections, and summing the
individual areas to calculate the throat area, the vane segment
including a first platform and a second platform and a first
airfoil and a second airfoil extending between the first platform
and the second platform; and
adjusting a design characteristic of the vane segment
based on the calculated throat area.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a disputed
recitation).
Claim 11 similarly recites a method including calculating a throat area
and adjusting a design characteristic if the calculated area is other than a
desired value. Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1 or 11.

Appeal 2020-001856
Application 15/013,308

3
REJECTION2
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chuong3 and Li.4
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1 and 11 together. Appeal Br. 3–4.
Appellant also identifies claims 2, 10, 14, and 20 under separate headings
but, with the exception of claim 20, solely relies on the same arguments
made with regard to claim 1. Id. at 5–6. We address Appellant’s arguments
concerning claim 1 below. Each of claims 2–19 stands or falls with claim 1.
Claim 20 is separately addressed.

Claim 1
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds Chuong discloses all of the
recited steps for calculating throat area of a gas turbine engine vane segment.
Final Act. 8–9. Chuong states the throat area “is an important parameter that
may influence engine efficiency” and, therefore, “must be periodically
measured and calculated to verify clearances.” Chuong ¶ 46. The Examiner
acknowledges, however, Chuong does not disclose adjusting a vane segment
design characteristic based on the throat area calculation. Final Act. 9. See
also Ans. 8 (characterizing Chuong as disclosing throat area calculation with
“no actual use of that calculation.”). The Examiner finds Li teaches using
design data in a programmable computer numerical control (CNC) machine

2 The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Advisory Action, dated May 9, 2019 (“Advisory Act.”).
3 US 2014/0142889 A1, published May 22, 2014. Appellant does not
dispute the qualification of Chuong as prior art. Reply Br. 2.
4 US 2014/0257542 A1, published September 11, 2014.
Appeal 2020-001856
Application 15/013,308

4
to manufacture complex gas turbine engine parts. Final Act. 9; Advisory
Act. 2. See Li ¶ 30 (“The machining program may comprise commands that
indicate a numerically-controlled tool path to be followed by at least one
tool of the machining center for manufacturing the whole or a portion of the
part.”). In light of those teachings in Chuong and Li, the Examiner finds one
of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to use Chuong’s
calculated vane segment information in programming of a CNC machine for
manufacture of corresponding gas turbine engine parts. Final Act. 9. The
Examiner thus reads the recited step of adjusting a design characteristic as
encompassing use of calculated throat area data in a CNC machine program.
Advisory Act. 2 (“Applied to the recitation of the claim, the combination
[of] Choung [sic] with Li was intended to evidence that it would have been
obvious to ‘adjust a design characteristic’ based upon the method of Choung
[sic] by employing a programmable CNC, such as the one evidence by Li.”).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection “fails to establish that Li is
concerned with adjusting a design characteristic of a component.” Appeal
Br. 3; Reply Br. 2–3. Instead, Appellant contends, Li merely teaches
compensating for “positional error” of an engine part relative to a holding
fixture. Id. at 4. Appellant argues the Examiner does not present evidence
that Li was concerned with measuring a throat area and Chuong was
concerned with positional error compensation. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Appellant correctly observes Li teaches positional
error compensation in connection with a CNC manufacturing operation. See
e.g. Li ¶ 24 (discussing a method for “positioning error compensation during
manufacturing of a gas turbine engine part”). In that regard, Li seeks to
Appeal 2020-001856
Application 15/013,308

5
address mis-orientation of a workpiece prior to conducting a machining
operation. Li ¶ 27 (“When it is determined from the measurements that the
part’s location is within the tolerance, the part 202a may be machined on the
CNC machine directly.”); id. ¶ 30 (“If it is determined at step 110 that no
measurement is beyond the tolerance, the next step 116 may then be to
generate a machining program for the part.”). However, the Examiner does
not rely on Li’s positional error compensation in reaching the obviousness
determination. Ans. 10 (“Li’s improvement to these common CNC
machines (e.g., repositioning the part during the machining) is not relevant
to the rejection, nor is it relied upon.”). Rather, the Examiner finds the
recited design characteristic adjustment would have been performed by
employing Chuong’s throat area calculation as an input to a CNC machining
program to manufacture a corresponding part consistent with the desired
throat area. Final Act. 9; Ans. 2. Appellant’s argument neither addresses
nor shows error in that finding.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The Examiner’s
rejection as applied to each of claims 1–19 is sustained.

Claim 20
With regard to claim 20, Appellant additionally argues the Examiner’s
rejection is conclusory because the Examiner does not set forth a basis for
rejecting that claim. Appeal Br. 6. Claim 20 recites, in pertinent part,
“wherein cutting or trimming the portion of the vane segment includes
electrical discharge machining.” The Examiner, however, addresses that
Appeal 2020-001856
Application 15/013,308

6
feature in connection with claim 2, from which claim 20 depends. Final Act.
10 (finding Li teaches wire electrical discharge machining) (citing Li ¶ 30).
Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error. The
Examiner’s rejection as applied to claim 20 also is sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Chuong, Li 1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED