Andrés Jose. Garcia-Crespo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2019

13532713 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
13/532,713 06/25/2012 Andrés Jose Garcia-Crespo 256814-1 (GETH:0164) 1031
82438 7590 09/27/2019
GE Power & Water
Fletcher Yoder PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
LAMBERT, WAYNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2019 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
howell@fyiplaw.com
swanson@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDRÉS JOSE GARCIA-CRESPO and
PATRICK DANIEL NOBLE
____________________

Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1–4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 21,
23, and 26–32 in the present application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

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 the United States
Department of Energy. Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) 2.
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
2
The claimed invention is directed to rotor interface geometry in
turbomachine composite blades. Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claim 1 illustrative
of the invention reads as follows:
1. A system, comprising:
a rotor, comprising:
a first disk post having a first retaining surface formed in
an outer surface of the rotor;
a second disk post having a second retaining surface
formed in the outer surface of the rotor; and
an axial slot formed in the outer surface of the rotor and
disposed between the first and second retaining surfaces; and
a composite blade segment, comprising:
a blade; and
an axial mounting segment coupled to the blade, wherein
the axial mounting segment comprises a plurality of laminated
plies, and wherein the axial mounting segment comprises:
a first contact face having a first proximal end and
a first distal end;
a second contact face having a second proximal end
and a second distal end, wherein the first and second
proximal ends are configured to be inserted within the
axial slot to form a joint, the first and second distal ends
are configured to remain outside of the axial slot when the
joint is formed, the first and second proximal ends are
configured to abut the first retaining surface of the first
disk post and the second retaining surface of the second
disk post, respectively, when the first and second proximal
ends are inserted into the axial slot and when a
turbomachine having the composite blade segment is in
operation; and
a lower face coupling the first and second proximal
ends of the first and second contact faces at respective first
and second corners, wherein the lower face has a curved
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
3
surface that curves radially away from the blade between
the first and second corners, the first contact face has a
first curved surface extending to or adjacent the first
corner, and the second contact face has a second curved
surface extending to or adjacent the second corner.
App. Br. 17–18, Claims App. (emphasis added).

REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects various claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as follows:
1. Claims 1–3, 7, 9, 12, 20, 28, and 29 as unpatentable over
McCaffrey (US 8,794,925 B2, iss. Aug. 5, 2014) in view of Potter (US
6,857,856 B2, iss. Feb. 22, 2005). Final Act. 3.
2. Claim 4 as unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of Potter and
Scope (US 2008/0025843 A1, pub. Jan. 31, 2008). Final Act. 9.
3. Claim 10 as unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of Potter and
Subramanian (US 7,597,838 B2, iss. Oct. 6, 2009). Final Act. 10.
4. Claim 14 as unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of
Subramanian. Final Act. 12.
5. Claims 21 and 26 as unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of
Potter and Wilson (US 4,790,723, iss. Dec. 13, 1988). Final Act. 14.
6. Claim 16 as unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of
Subramanian, Potter, and Wilson. Final Act. 16.
7. Claim 23 as unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of
Subramanian and Scope. Final Act. 18.

2 We number the Examiner’s rejections in the order presented in the Final
Office Action. We note that the Appellant utilizes different numbering in
the headings within its Appeal Brief to identify the rejections.
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
4
8. Claim 27 as unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of
Subramanian and Potter. Final Act. 20.
9. Claims 30 and 31 as unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of
Scope. Final Act. 22.
10. Claim 32 as unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of Scope and
Potter. Final Act. 24.

ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by the Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that the Appellant could have made
but chose not to make have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–
66 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075–76 (BPAI 2010
(precedential)).

Rejections 1–3 and 5
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 7, 9, 12, 20, 28, and 29 as
unpatentable over McCaffrey in view of Potter, finding that McCaffrey
discloses a system as substantially claimed in independent claim 1. Final
Act. 3–5. The Examiner concedes that “McCaffrey does not explicitly
disclose the first contact face has a first curved surface extending to or
adjacent the first corner, and the second contact face has a second curved
surface extending to or adjacent the second corner.” Final Act. 5; see also
App. Br. 17–18, Claims App’x. The Examiner relies on Potter, finding that
it discloses
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
5
wherein the first contact face (i.e. area pointed to by r in figure
4) has a first curved surface extending to or adjacent the first
corner (i.e. area where the profile curves down), and the second
contact face (i.e. area pointed to by r in figure 4) has a second
curved surface extending to or adjacent the second corner (i.e.
area where the profile curves down) in order to prevent
delamination of composites plies.
Final Act. 5, citing Potter col. 1, ll. 46–63; col. 2, ll. 1–7, 28–33.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to have
modif[ied] the first and second contact faces of McCaffrey
wherein the first contact face has a first curved surface
extending to or adjacent the first corner (i.e. of McCaffrey), and
the second contact face has a second curved surface extending
to or adjacent the second corner (i.e. of McCaffrey), as taught
by Potter.
Final Act. 5.
According to the Examiner, such modification is merely “the use of a
known technique (in this case the use of a curved contact face to mount[] a
blade segment as taught by Potter), to improve a similar device[] . . . so as to
provide an optimum load path for stress by curving the contact face as taught
by Potter.” Final Act. 6, citing Potter, col. 1, ll. 52–62.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection and reasoning
“ignores the teachings of McCaffrey, which specifically discloses that the
contact surface 88 forms an angle with respect to the blade root centerline
. . . so that ‘all ply transitions upon the attachment ply layer group 84 occur
in the compression zone as represented inboard of the line CE.’” App. Br. 8,
quoting McCaffrey, col. 5, ll. 4–7; Fig. 5. In that regard, the Appellant
points out that McCaffrey discloses that “[i]f the critical interlaminar stress
is contained within the ‘compression zone,’ the allowable Interlaminar
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
6
Tensile (ILT) and Interlaminar Shear (ILS) stress can be increased by a
factor of 5-10. Thus making highly loaded blade attachments possible.”
App. Br. 9, quoting McCaffrey, col. 5, ll. 37–48 (emphasis omitted).
The Appellant argues that in contrast, in Potter, “the circular shape of
the jacket 112 changes where and how the jacket 112 compresses against the
rotary disk 101,” such that “the circular shape of Potter’s blade 100 diffuses
and concentrates compressive forces at different points about the jacket
112.” App. Br. 9–10, citing Potter, Fig. 4. According to the Appellant, if
McCaffrey is modified in view of Potter as suggested, “McCaffrey would no
longer place all ply transitions in the compression zone nor contain the
critical interlaminar stress within the compression zone. McCaffrey
therefore teaches away from a modification of the shape of the root region
60 as suggested by the Examiner.” App. Br. 10. Thus, the Appellant argues
that the suggested modification “would nullify McCaffrey’s teaching of
placing all ply transitions in the compression zone and containing the critical
interlaminar stress within the compression zone as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and
6” (Reply Br. 4), and “would eliminate the advantages taught by McCaffrey,
or in other words the innovation described in McCaffrey.” Reply Br. 3.
We generally agree with the Appellant. “A reference that ‘merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into’ the claimed
invention does not teach away.” Meiresonne v. Google, 849 F.3d 1379,
1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737
F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). The Examiner responds McCaffrey merely
discloses “a desirable alternative of having a seemingly straight contact
surface 88” (Ans. 2), and that it “does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
7
discourage the solution claimed.” Ans. 3. However, as the Appellant points
out, the disclosure of McCaffrey is not expressing mere general preference,
but instead, is focused on providing structure with the compression zone
described therein so as to attain the disclosed benefit of reduced stresses. “A
reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994). In view of the focused disclosure in McCaffrey with respect to the
disclosed compression zone that is planar, and the benefits thereof, a person
of ordinary skill would have been “led in a direction divergent from the path
that was taken by the applicant.” Id.
Moreover, the invention of Potter is constructed very differently than
the invention of McCaffrey, the attachment mechanism of Potter having a
loop 111 formed of continuous matrix layers 20 that surround an insert/core
108, which is received within a jacket 112, and this assembly is inserted into
the cavity 130 of the rotary disk 101. See Potter, col. 3, l. 61–col. 5, l. 5; col.
4, ll. 21–29, 60–67; Fig. 4. Although the Examiner reasons that the
configuration of McCaffrey would be modified to include curved contact
surfaces in view of Potter to “provide an optimum load path” (Potter, col. 1,
ll. 52–62), it is clear from Potter that the benefit disclosed therein is
attributable to the disclosed jacket 112, and not to the curved upper portion
of the loop 111. The Examiner further responds that “McCaffrey teaches
that other interfaces may be alternatively provided (i.e. see col 5, ll 35-36).”
Ans. 3. However, the Appellant is correct that the portion of McCaffrey’s
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
8
disclosure relied upon pertains to allowing for different angles of the planar
contact surface. See Reply Br. 4.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we reverse Rejection 1
because it fails to fully consider McCaffrey as would be understood by one
of ordinary skill, and the rejection appears to be based on impermissible
hindsight. Rejections 2, 3, and 5 rely on the same combination of
McCaffrey and Potter, and the Examiner’s reliance on tertiary references for
limitations set forth in various dependent claims does not remedy the above
discussed deficiency in the combination of McCaffrey and Potter.
Therefore, these rejections are also reversed.
In summary, Rejections 1–3 and 5 are reversed.

Rejections 4 and 6–8
The Examiner rejects independent claim 14 as unpatentable over
McCaffrey in view of Subramanian, finding that McCaffrey discloses a
system as substantially claimed, but concedes that McCaffrey does not
disclose the recited limitation of claim 14 requiring
one or more first plies of the plurality of laminated plies has the
plurality of fibers extending along a first axis, one or more
second plies of the plurality of laminated plies has the plurality
of fibers extending along a second axis, and the first and second
axes are crosswise to one another.
Final Act. 12–13; see also App. Br. 20, Claims App’x.
The Examiner relies on Subramanian, finding that it discloses first
plies having fibers extending along a first axis, and second plies having
fibers extending along a second axis, wherein “the first and second axes are
crosswise to one another (i.e. as is known in the art of fibers of a ply, see col
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
9
2, ll 55-60 and as further evident by US Patent Application Publication
2007/0031258 paragraph [0016] the known orientating of fibers to tailor
mechanical strength).” Final Act. 14.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the mounting segment of
McCaffrey so that the first plies are provided with fibers extending along a
first axis, and second plies are provided with fibers extending along a second
axis, wherein the first and second axes are crosswise to one another,
as taught by Subramanian, as it is noted that the use of a known
technique (in this case the use of the orientation of fibers in []
composites as taught by Subramanian), to improve a similar
device[] (in this case the use of the orientation of the fibers of
McCaffrey so as to tailor the mechanical strength of the
composite blade segment) was an obvious extension of prior art
teachings.
Final Act. 14.
We agree with the Examiner.
The Appellant argues that although Subramanian discusses fibers, it
does not disclose fibers that are crosswise to each other. App. Br. 12.
However, we agree with the Examiner that Subramanian teaches
the formation of three dimensioned fibers within the plies of a
composite as part of what is well known in the art and of the
formation of composite forms. It is well known in the art, as
one having ordinary skills understands, that the strength or
overall characteristics of a composite may be manipulated by
the orientation of fibers within the composite.
Ans. 5.
Accordingly, considering Subramanian’s explicit disclosure of
providing fibers in the through-thickness direction of composites, and 3-D
fiber architectures, we agree with the Examiner that orienting fibers in the
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
10
claimed manner would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill, and that
the application of Subramanian’s 3-D fiber teachings to the layers of
McCaffrey would result in “having fibers (i.e. of a 3-D form and in each
layer) extending along different axes and including crosswise extensions.”
Ans. 4, citing Subramanian col. 2, ll. 63–65.
The Appellant also argues that Subramanian disparages such fiber
providing methods disclosed in the cited passage by stating that they
“require trade-offs in in-plane mechanical properties and result in significant
increases in fiber and/or manufacturing costs” so as to teach away from
using these methods so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
combine it with McCaffrey. App. Br. 12, quoting Subramanian, col. 2, ll.
63–65 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 5. We disagree. “[A] given
course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and
this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v.
Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Acknowledging that
using a particular method to orient fibers may involve technical trade-offs
and increase cost is merely observing the realities of engineering and
manufacturing wherein consideration of such trade-offs are par for the
course. See also In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“That
a given combination would not be made by businessmen for economic
reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art would not make the
combination because of some technological incompatibility. Only the latter
fact would be relevant.”).
The Appellant further argues that “it is unclear why one of ordinary
skill in the art would want to penetrate McCaffrey’s plies with fibers”
because “McCaffrey teaches placing all ply transitions in the compression
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
11
zone and containing the critical interlaminar stress within the compression
zone” such that “McCaffrey does not need fibers that penetrate the plies in
order to resist separation of the plies.” Reply Br. 5. However, we first
observe that the root region disclosed in McCaffrey appears to already
include fibers in that McCaffrey discloses that the blade, which includes the
root region, may be made of Ceramic Matrix Composite. McCaffrey, col. 2,
ll. 49–51. More importantly, we also observe that McCaffrey’s root region
60 is not only the compression zone, but includes vertically extending
portions that would benefit from fibers and orientation thereof. See
McCaffrey Figs. 2, 4.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 as set forth in Rejection 4.
The Appellant does not submit separate arguments directed to the limitations
of dependent claims depending from independent claim 14, which stand
rejected under Rejections 6 and 8. Accordingly, Rejections 6 and 8 are also
affirmed.
As to Rejection 7 that rejects dependent claim 23, the Appellant relies
on arguments submitted relative to McCaffrey and Scope in response to the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 (in Rejection 9), and argues that the
applied references do not disclose a constant radius that extends to, or is
adjacent the first and second corners as required by claim 23. App. Br. 14.
However, as discussed in detail infra relative to Rejection 9, we find the
Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm Rejection 7 as
well.
In summary, Rejections 4 and 6–8 are affirmed.

Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
12
Rejections 9 and 10
The Examiner rejects claims 30 and 31 as unpatentable over
McCaffrey in view of Scope. Final Act. 22. The Examiner finds that
McCaffrey discloses a system as substantially claimed in independent claim
30, but concedes that McCaffrey does not disclose the limitation of claim 30
reciting that “the curved surface of the lower face has a constant radius.”
Final Act. 23; see also App. Br. 22, Claims App’x. The Examiner finds that
Scope disclose mounting of blades wherein the lower curved surface has a
constant radius. Final Act. 23; see also Scope, Fig. 6.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the lower face of the mounting
segment of McCaffrey such that the curved surface of the lower face has a
constant radius as claimed, concluding
as taught by Scope, [] it is noted that the use of a known
technique (in this case the use of a curve lower face having a
constant radius as taught by Scope), to improve a similar
device[] (in this case the use of the constant curve lower face of
McCaffrey, so as to provide minimum stress in the lower face
of blade segment, see Scope paragraph [0030]) was an obvious
extension of prior art teachings.
Final Act. 23.
The Examiner further explains that
McCaffrey already teaches a curved lower section extending
between corners (see annotated figure 4 of McCaffrey below).
The modification of this curving to have a constant radius, as
taught by Scope, would extend to these corners (i.e. of that
annotated figure 4 of McCaffrey) and for the purpose of
minimizing hoop stress in the lower face.
Ans. 6.
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
13
The Appellant argues that “Scope does not disclose a constant radius
that either extends to or is adjacent the first and second corners,” and
instead, “discloses multiple radii between the first and second corners.”
App. Br. 13, referring to annotated version of Scope, Fig. 6. Accordingly,
the Appellant argues that “Scope is unable to correct the deficiencies of
McCaffrey.” App. Br. 13.
We agree with the Examiner. It is clear that McCaffrey discloses a
generally arced lower face, which appears to be substantially semi-circular
(i.e., arc having a constant radius). See McCaffrey Fig. 4; see also In re
Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (drawings can be relied upon for
what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art);
In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). However, McCaffrey does
not explicitly disclose that the arced lower face is in fact, semi-circular. As
such, the Examiner relied on Scope for disclosing “a fully semi circular end
face 69 would be ideal.” Scope, ¶ 30; Fig. 6. Shaping the arced lower face
of McCaffrey to be fully semi-circular (to any extent that it is not semi-
circular) would have been “an obvious extension of prior art teachings”
(Final Act. 23), and applying the “fully semi circular end face” teaching of
Scope to McCaffrey would result in such a fully semi-circular end face
extending to the corners of McCaffrey. See McCaffrey, Fig. 4.
The Examiner also sets forth alternative bases for concluding that
claim 30 would have been obvious based on claim interpretation and
comparison of Figures 5 and 6 of Scope. Ans. 6. Although we agree with
the Appellant that such bases are unfounded (Reply Br. 6), these alternative
bases are not dispositive in view of our agreement with the Examiner for the
reasons discussed above.
Appeal 2019-000822
Application 13/532,713
14
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we affirm Rejection 9
as to independent claim 30. The Appellant does not submit separate
arguments directed to the limitations of dependent claim 31. Accordingly,
claim 31 falls with claim 30. The Appellant also does not submit separate
arguments directed to Rejection 10 that rejects claim 32. Accordingly,
Rejection 10 is also affirmed.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Rejections 1–3 and 5 are REVERSED.
2. Rejections 4 and 6–10 are AFFIRMED.

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-IN-PART