United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 7, 2020

16037917 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2020)

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.
16/037,917 07/17/2018 Ryan B. Noraas 79732US02
(U420894USC)
6358
135291 7590 10/07/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
HA, STEVEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2020 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 RYAN B. NORAAS and STEVEN J. BULLIED
Appeal 2020-000113
Application 16/037,917
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, 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 1–16. 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 the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. In an April 22, 2020, filing,
Appellant indicates that the real party in interest is now Raytheon
Technologies Corporation.
Appeal 2020-000113
Application 16/037,917

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to open-cell reticulated
foam for use in creation of gas turbine engine fan blades. Spec. ¶ 2.
Appellant explains that engine designers have reduced fan blade weight “by
employing an open-cell reticulated metal foam core enveloped by an outer
shell of a resilient second material that forms the airfoil.” Id. ¶ 3-–4.
Appellant states that metal foams created with high void fraction open-cell
reticulated foams “lack the strength and mechanical properties necessary for
use in a fan blade.” Id. ¶ 5. Appellant thus states that a need exists for
modified, open-cell reticulated foams that can be used as a precursor to
manufacture open-cell reticulated metal foams. Id. Claims 1 and 7 are the
only independent claims on appeal, and we reproduce those claims below
and add emphases to certain key recitations:
1. A foam for forming a gas turbine engine fan blade using
a lost-foam casting process, the foam having a void fraction
less than or equal to ninety five percent, comprising:
a first layer, the first layer comprising a polymer foam
having an open-cell structure and a void fraction greater
than ninety five percent;
a second layer, the second layer comprising an adhesive
adhered to the first layer; and
a third layer, the third layer comprising a particulate
material, the third layer adhered to the second layer.

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated September 21,
2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 21, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated July 29, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed September 30, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-000113
Application 16/037,917

3
7. A method of manufacturing foam for forming a gas turbine
engine fan blade using a lost-foam casting process, the foam having a
void fraction less than or equal to ninety five percent, comprising:
providing a polymer foam having an open-cell structure
and a void fraction greater than ninety five percent;
coating the polymer foam with an adhesive; and
applying a particulate material to the adhesive.
Appeal Br. 14–15 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Kamigata et al.
(“Kamigata”)
US 5,881,353 Mar. 9, 1999
Rabiei US 2012/0196147 A1 Aug. 2, 2012

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1–3, 7–9, and 13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Kamigata in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”). Final
Act. 3.
B. Claims 4–6 and 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Kamigata in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”) and
Rabiei. Id. at 7–8.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
Appeal 2020-000113
Application 16/037,917

4
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant presents a substantively identical argument for claims 1 and
7 and does not present distinct arguments for any dependent claims. See
Appeal Br. 6–12. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claims 1 and 7, and all
other claims on appeal stand or fall together with the claim from which it
depends.
The Examiner finds that Kamigata teaches a foam having most of the
structure of claim 1 and meeting most method steps of claim 7. Final Act. 3
(citing Kamigata). The Examiner finds that Kamigata is silent with regard to
polymer foam having a void fraction greater than ninety five percent. Id. The
Examiner finds that the AAPA teaches that open-cell foam used to
manufacture metal foam commonly has about ninety seven percent void
fraction. Id. at 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶ 5). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to modify Kamigata to provide a foam having void
fraction greater than ninety five percent as taught by the AAPA “because it
is common to utilize a foam wherein the void fraction is about ninety seven
percent.” Id.
Appeal 2020-000113
Application 16/037,917

5
Appellant argues that Kamigata does not teach the void fraction
recitations by claims 1 and 7. Appeal Br. 6–10; Reply Br. 2–5. In particular,
Appellant argues that in Kamigata the foam layer is removed and that
Kamigata, thus, does not teach a polymer foam void fraction. Id. at 6–7, 9–
10. Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. To the extent Appellant argues
that Kamigata alone does not teach the claims’ recited void fractions, the
argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Kamigata and the AAPA to reach these recitations. Ans. 4. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, the Examiner’s finding that Kamigata teaches various
polymer foam void fractions is supported by the preponderance of the
evidence. Final Act. 3. Below, we reproduce the relevant portion of
Kamigata’s description of its example 9 to illustrate:
As the result, the nickel powder was sintered, and a blocklike nickel
porous body was obtained, having such a form that the pattern of
polyurethane foam was transferred. The porous body obtained had a
size of 80 mmx80 mmx50 mm, and a porosity of 95%.
Kamigata 8:20–24. Based on this passage, Appellant is correct Kamigata’s
reference to porosity only directly refers to porosity of the “metal porous
body obtained.” Kamigata is also clear, however, that the form of the
polyurethane foam “was transferred” to the metal porous body obtained. Id.
Thus, a person of skill in the art would have understood that the
polyurethane foam also had a porosity of 95% (before being decomposed
and before its form transfers to the metal). See also, e.g., id. at 8:54–58
Appeal 2020-000113
Application 16/037,917

6
(providing a similar passage establishing porosity of 93% for example 11
polyurethane foam).
Appellant also argues that a person of skill in the art would not have
modified Kamigata with the AAPA because the Specification states that
“ligaments and nodes of metal foams created with the use of such high void
fraction open-cell reticulated foams [i.e., 97%] lack the strength and
mechanical properties necessary for use in a fan blade.” Appeal Br. 7–8
(quoting Spec. ¶ 5). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because the
Specification also states that the data regarding strength and mechanical
properties is “not necessarily conclusive.” Spec. ¶ 5; see also Ans. 5. Even
more importantly, the Specification admits that, “[t]he void fraction of the
open-cell reticulated foam utilized to manufacture such metal foam [for fan
blades] is commonly about ninety seven percent.” Spec. ¶ 5. Even if use of
ninety seven percent void fraction might have strength or mechanical
problems, this does not diminish the obviousness of using ninety seven
percent when this percentage is “commonly” used. Id.; see also Ans. 5.
Moreover, Appellant admits that use of foam cores were known to
have the advantage of decreasing fuel consumption. Spec. ¶ 3. A person of
skill in the art would have recognized the trade-off between, for example,
decreasing weight and increasing strength. The existence of trade-offs does
not obviate motivation to combine. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d
1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has
simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily
obviate motivation to combine”).
Because Appellant’s arguments do not establish error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
Appeal 2020-000113
Application 16/037,917

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–9,
13–16
103 Kamigata, AAPA 1–3, 7–9,
13–16

4–6, 10–12 103 Kamigata, AAPA,
Rabiei
4–6, 10–12
Overall
Outcome
1–16

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