Alan H. Epstein et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 3, 202014789295 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/789,295 07/01/2015 Alan H. Epstein 67097-3234 PUS1;81444US01 2197 54549 7590 02/03/2020 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER FORD, RENE D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/03/2020 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALAN H. EPSTEIN, GABRIEL L. SUCIU, and JESSE M. CHANDLER ____________ Appeal 2019-000774 Application 14/789,295 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, 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 and 5–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-000774 Application 14/789,295 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a tip shrouded compressor stage and compressor blades with a high aspect ratio (Spec., para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A gas turbine engine compressor stage comprising: a rotor; compressor blades supported by the rotor, the blades include an inner flow path surface each supporting an airfoil that has a chord extending radially along a span to a tip, a shroud supported at the tip and providing an outer flow path surface, wherein the shroud provides a noncontiguous ring about the compressor stage, wherein the airfoils have an aspect ratio corresponding to the airfoil span to the airfoil chord, the shroud extends the full chord, wherein the aspect ratio is in a range of 1.6 to 2.8. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1 and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103as unpatentable over Ortolano (US 3,279,751 A1, iss. Oct. 18, 1966), Dennis, The Gas Turbine Handbook, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2006), and Smith, Nasa/GE Fan and Compressor Research Accomplishments, International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition, May 1993 meeting. 2. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ortolano, Dennis, Smith, and Krueger (US 5,037,273, pub. Aug. 6, 1991. Appeal 2019-000774 Application 14/789,295 3 3. Claims 10–14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elaini (US 5,522,705, pub. June 4, 1996) Krueger, Dennis, and Smith. 4. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elaini, Krueger, Dennis, Smith, and Ortolano as evidenced by Evans (US Patent 5,211,540), issued May 18, 1993. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Appellant argue the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ortolano, Dennis, and Smith is improper (App. Br. 4–7, Reply Br. 1–3). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper (Final Act. 4, 5, Ans. 3–9). We agree with the Examiner. The Appellant has argued that Ortolano does not disclose the claimed airfoils having an “aspect ratio [that is] in the range of 1.6 to 2.8,” and that Dennis teaches away from these claimed features (Appeal Br. 4-7). The Appellant also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from using a shroud in the 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2019-000774 Application 14/789,295 4 combination of references (App. Br. 6). We determine the Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive and agree with and adopt the Examiners rationale for the rejection set forth in the Answer. The Examiner has acknowledged that Ortolano does not disclose as aspect ratio of 1.6 to 2.8, but notes that the Specification indicates at paragraph 3 that the current state of the art for such aspect ratios is 1.2 to 1.4 (Ans. 7). The Examiner cites that Dennis at page 163 and Table 3 discloses that the thrust/weight ratio is increased by higher aspect ratios, and further that the trend in the industry is to have increasing aspect ratios (Ans. 6). We agree with the Examiner’s rationale that the cited modification of references to include the claimed range for the aspect ratio would have been obvious to increase thrust weight ratio, as set forth in the Final Action and Answer. The Appellant in the Appeal Brief at page 5 argues that Dennis teaches that a high ratio aspect 9 is risky, but the claimed range is only 1.6 to 2.8. The Appellant argues shrouds should not be used with low aspect ratios, but here in the rejection of record we agree with the Examiner’s rationale that in the combination of references that the shroud increases safety. For these reasons, the rejection of record of claim 1 is adopted and sustained. The Appellant has provided the same arguments for claims 7–9, and the rejection of these claims is sustained as well. The Appellant has not provided separate arguments for claims 5 and 6, and the rejection of record for these claims is adopted and sustained. With regard to the rejection of claims 10–16 the Appellant argues that Elaini teaches away from using a shroud in the combinations (App. Br. 7). These arguments are not persuasive and we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationale in the rejection of record. The Appellant Appeal 2019-000774 Application 14/789,295 5 argues the reference piecemeal when the rejection of record is based on a combination of the references. Here, in the cited combination the addition of a shroud is considered to have been an obvious modification to increase safety. Accordingly, the rejection of these claims is sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as listed in the Rejections section above. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Ba sis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7–9 103 Ortolano, Dennis, Smith 1, 7–9 5, 6 103 Ortolano, Dennis, Smith, Krueger 5, 6 10–14, 16 103 Elaini, Krueger, Dennis, Smith 10–14, 16 14, 15 103 Elaini, Krueger, Dennis, Smith, Ortolano 14, 15 Overall Outcome 1, 5–16 Appeal 2019-000774 Application 14/789,295 6 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation