Alan H. Epstein et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2020

14789295 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 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.
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