Ex Parte Aggarwala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2018

13664031 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/664,031 10/30/2012
135291 7590 10/19/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew S. Aggarwala
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
62546US02 (U42055 l US2) 4807
EXAMINER
LAMBERT, WAYNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2018 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 ANDREWS. AGGARWALA, TIMOTHY CHARLES NASH,
EUNICE ALLEN-BRADLEY, and ERIC A. GROVER
Appeal2018-003525
Application 13/664,031 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 9--18, and 20 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pandey et al. (US 2010/0158696 Al,
pub. June 24, 2010) ("Pandey") and Barr et al. (US 9,085,985 B2, July 21,
2015) ("Barr"). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest in this Appeal is
United Technologies Corporation." Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003525
Application 13/664,031
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellants' "disclosure relates generally to airfoil arrays utilized
in gas turbine engines and, more particularly, to endwall contouring."
Spec. ,r 2.
Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An airfoil array, comprising:
an endwall;
a plurality of airfoils radially projecting from the endwall,
each airfoil having a first side and an opposite second side
extending axially in chord between a leading edge and a trailing
edge, the airfoils circumferentially spaced apart on the endwall
thereby defining a plurality of flow passages between adjacent
airfoils;
a convex profiled region extending from the endwall
adjacent the first side of at least one of said plurality of airfoils
near the leading edge of the at least one of said plurality of
airfoils, a local maximum in radial extent of the convex profiled
region is positioned between the leading edge and mid-chord of
the airfoil and is disposed between about 0% to about 50% of the
axial chord and is disposed between about 0% to about 50% of
the passage width; and
a concave profiled region in the endwall and extending
across said at least one of said plurality of flow passages, a local
minimum in radial extent of the concave profiled region is
positioned between the leading edge and the trailing edge of the
airfoil and is disposed closer to the second side of an adjacent
airfoil than the first side of the at least one airfoil of said plurality
of airfoils.
2
Appeal2018-003525
Application 13/664,031
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
The Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Pandey and Barr
fail to teach the airfoil array's concave profiled region of claim 1, which
recites (with bracketed notations added):
[(a)] a concave profiled region in the endwall and
extending across said at least one of said plurality of flow
passages, [ (b)] a local minimum in radial extent of the concave
profiled region is positioned between the leading edge and the
trailing edge of the airfoil and [ ( c)] is disposed closer to the
second side of an adjacent airfoil than the first side of the at least
one airfoil of said plurality of airfoils.
Br. 6-7.
The Examiner's rejection relies on Pandey to teach limitations (a) and
(b) and Barr to teach limitation ( c ). See Final Act. 6. As for limitation (a),
the Examiner's relies on Pandey's teaching of an airfoil array including "a
concave profiled region 3 8 in the end wall 18 and extending across said at
least one of said plurality of flow passages ( as best seen in [F]igures 2 and
4)."2 Id. As for limitation (b ), the Examiner's relies on Pandey's teaching
of an airfoil array including "a local minimum (i.e. 38) in radial extent of the
concave profiled region 3 8 is positioned between the leading edge 32 and
the trailing edge 34 of the airfoil 16." Id. As for limitation (c), the
Examiner's relies on Barr's teaching of an airfoil array including "a local
minimum ... disposed closer to the second side of an adjacent airfoil than
2 The Examiner finds "Barr teaches a local minimum ... is positioned
between the leading edge 24 and the trailing edge 26 of the airfoil 10." Final
Act. 6.
3
Appeal2018-003525
Application 13/664,031
the first side of the at least one airfoil of said plurality of airfoils." Id. 3 The
Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the local
minimum of Pandey is disposed closer to the second side of an
adjacent airfoil than the first side of the at least one airfoil of said
plurality of airfoils, as taught by Barr, as it is noted that the use
of a known technique (in this case the use of a local minimum
located closer to one airfoil over another as taught by Barr), to
improve a similar devices (in this case the use of a local
minimum of Pandey located closer to one airfoil over another so
as to reduce the strength of horseshoe vortices, minimize losses
due to secondary flow, mitigating shock interactions and overly
improving the turbines aerodynamic efficiency) was an obvious
extension of prior art teachings.
Id. at 6-7.
As discussed above, the Appellants' argument is based on an assertion
that the combined teachings of Pandey and Barr fail to teach the claimed
airfoil array's concave profiled region. See Br. 6-7. In support of this
argument the Appellants point to the individual teachings of Pandey and
Barr. Id. at 7-8.
The Appellants assert that Pandey's Figure 4 shows "the maximum
depth is clearly disposed closer to the pressure side 28 to work in
conjunction with the elevated aft ridge 3 8 in an attempt to minimize pressure
losses due to horseshow vortices." Id. at 7. This assertion appears to
address limitation ( c ). As discussed, the Examiner does not rely on Pandey
3 The Examiner finds "Pandey does not explicitly teach [ a local minimum]
disposed closer to the second side of an adjacent airfoil than the first side of
the at least one airfoil of said plurality of airfoils." Final Act. 6.
4
Appeal2018-003525
Application 13/664,031
to teach limitation ( c ). Supra, n.3. The Appellants do not argue that Pandey
fails to teach limitations (a) and (b ).
The Appellants argue that "Barr fails to cure the deficiencies of
Pandey." Id. at 8. The Appellants' support this argument by discussing the
position of Barr's single bowl 40, which has first and second bowl portions
52, 54. See id. The Appellants assert that:
The first bowl portion 52 is directly attached to the suction
side 22 ( called a "second side" by the Final Office Action of
February 08, 2017) and is provided as part of a single bowl 40
that does not extend across a flow passage, as claimed, but
instead is interrupted by a bulge 3 8 inhibiting the single bowl 40
from extending across the flow passage.
Id. The foregoing assertion does not address the Examiner's finding the
Barr teaches limitation ( c ), i.e., "a local minimum ... [ ( c)] disposed closer to
the second side of an adjacent airfoil than the first side of the at least one
airfoil of said plurality of airfoils." Instead, the assertion is relevant to
limitation (a), i.e., "a concave profiled region in the endwall and extending
across said at least one of said plurality of flow passages" and the Examiner
does not rely on Barr to teach limitation (a).
Therefore, the Appellants' argument is premised on the notion that
Pandey fails to teach limitation ( c) and Barr fails to teach limitation (a).
However, nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Stated differently, the Appellants do not persuasively address how
the combined teachings of Pandey and Barr fail to teach the claimed airfoil
array's concave profiled region, i.e., limitations (a), (b), and (c). Ans. 2-3.
5
Appeal2018-003525
Application 13/664,031
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Dependent Claims 6, 7, and 9-12
The Appellants provide a separate heading for each rejected claim that
depends from claim 1 (i.e., claims 6, 7, 9-12). Br. 8-11. For each of these
dependent claims, the Appellants rely on the arguments advanced for the
rejection of claim 1 and fail to add a further argument for the dependent
claim.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7, and 9-12.
Independent Claim 13
The Appellants point to the following recitation of claim 13,
a local minimum in radial extent of the concave profiled surface
is disposed between about 50% to about 100% of the passage
width such that the local minimum is disposed closer to the
second side of an adjacent airfoil than the first side of the at least
one airfoil of said plurality of airfoils.
Br. 11. The foregoing recitation of claim 13 is similar to the recitation of
independent claim 1 discussed above. See id. at 6-7. The Examiner's
rejection of claim 13 is similar to the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. See
Final Act. 5-7, 8-11. The Appellants advance an argument that is
substantially similar to the argument advanced for the rejection of claim 1.
See Br. 11-12.
For reasons similar as those discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
6
Appeal2018-003525
Application 13/664,031
Dependent Claims 14-18 and 20
The Appellants provide a separate heading for each rejected claim that
depends directly from claim 13 (i.e., claims 14--18 and 20). Br. 12-14. For
each of these dependent claims, the Appellants rely on the arguments
advanced for the rejection of claim 13 and fail to add a further argument for
the dependent claim.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 14--18 and 20.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 9-18,
and 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7