Ex Parte Aiello et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 14, 2017

13627036 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2017)

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. 13/627,036 09/26/2012 Nicholas Aiello 63212US01; 5831 67097-2070PUS1 54549 7590 08/16/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER SEABE, JUSTIN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2017 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 NICHOLAS AIELLO and RAJI MALI Appeal 2016-0036971 Application 13/627,03 62 Technology Center 3700 Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Oct. 21, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 26, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 12, 2016) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 18, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-003697 Application 13/627,036 BACKGROUND The Specification “relates generally to a turbomachine rotor groove and, more particularly, to an annular groove that is relatively deep.” Spec. 11. CLAIMS Claims 1,10, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A turbomachine assembly, comprising: a rotor rotatable about an axis, the rotor providing a groove that is annular and is configured to receive a root of an airfoil, the groove having a radial cross-sectional area, wherein a ratio of the radial cross-sectional area of the groove to a radial cross-sectional area of the root received within the annular groove is from 2 to 5. Appeal Br. 10. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 6, 8—10, 14, 16—18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Frankel.3 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1,2, 4—11, and 13—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bifulco4 in view of Frankel and Juenger.5 3. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frankel in view of Sheridan.6 4. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bifulco in view of Frankel, Juenger, and Sheridan. 3 Frankel, US 2,921,770, iss. Jan. 19, 1960. 4 Bifulco, US 2010/0124495 Al, pub. May 20, 2010. 5 Juenger et al., US 5,141,401, iss. Aug. 25, 1992. 6 Sheridan, US 2009/0090096 Al, pub. Apr. 9, 2009. 2 Appeal 2016-003697 Application 13/627,036 DISCUSSION Anticipation With respect to each of the independent claims on appeal, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in finding that Frankel discloses that a ratio of the radial cross-sectional area of the groove to a radial cross-sectional area of the root received within the annular groove is from 2 to 5. With respect to the required ratio in each of the independent claims, the Examiner finds that the ratio is disclosed in Frankel because “the grooves are substantially deeper than the roots of the blades themselves. For example, in Figure 11, which teaches a HPC rotor, the entirety of the blade/root is dropped within the recess.” Final Act. 3. Further, in response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that the cross-sectional area of the groove is described as deep by Frankel as compared with the rotor blade and its root and that the groove is deep enough to at least partially accommodate the rotor blade during assembly. Ans. 6 (citing Frankel col. 1, 11. 23—31; col. 3,11. 39—46). The Examiner concludes that these descriptions in Frankel are consistent with the Examiner’s findings that the ratio of groove to root is within the claimed range and that “[t]he comparative ratio of [Frankel’s] drawings — coupled with the descriptions in the specification — teaches at least a magnitude within the claimed ratio.” Ans. 6. Appellants argue, and we agree, that Frankel fails to explicitly or implicitly disclose the ratio claimed. See Appeal Br. 3^4. The Examiner asserts that the rejection does not rely on a finding that the claimed ratio is inherent in Frankel. Final Act. 2. Thus, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed ratio is disclosed explicitly in Frankel’s figures and the 3 Appeal 2016-003697 Application 13/627,036 accompanying description that Frankel’s groove is described as deep. However, when the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the Examiner has not pointed to any description of the drawings that shows they are drawn to scale or that provides any measurements of the groove or rotor root. In fact, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 11 is particularly misplaced because Figure 11 depicts the blades in schematic form, which are of little value in determining the ratio of the groove to root. Thus, we find that the Examiner’s reliance on the appearance of a relatively deep groove as compared to the rotor root is not sufficient to show that Frankel discloses the claimed ratio. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 or dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, and 20 as anticipated by Frankel. Obviousness Claims 1, 2, 4 11, and 13—20 With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Bifulco teaches a turbomachine rotor comprising a rotor as claimed except that Bifulco does not teach the area ratio as claimed. Final Act. 4 (citing Bifulco Fig. 2). With respect to the claimed ratio, the Examiner relies on the same findings regarding Frankel discussed above with respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 4—5. Additionally, the Examiner finds and concludes: Juenger teaches optimizing and adjusting the groove area compared with the root, the groove area substantially larger than the root area (Figure 1). Undercuts (34) can be utilized to 4 Appeal 2016-003697 Application 13/627,036 provide a larger groove area than that of the root. This is done to eliminate surface stress peaks in the dovetail slot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the groove of Bifulco by providing a 2 to 5 groove to root cross-sectional area ratio with the dimensions of the groove in relation to the root as taught by Frankel and Juenger for the purposes of providing safety and strength against centrifugal force loading, and eliminating peak surface stress in the dovetail slot. Id. at 5. The Examiner also clarifies that Juenger is relied upon as showing that the claimed ratio is a result effective variable, the optimization of which would have been obvious. Id. at 2. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not adequately shown that the claimed ratio is a result effective variable such that its optimization would have been obvious in view of Juenger. Juenger teaches the use of undercut areas 34 in a rotor groove, which provide the benefit of increasing fatigue life of the rotor assembly. Juenger col. 3, 11. 55—68. Juenger also teaches: It will be appreciated that the maximum depth of the undercuts and their contour for relieving stress peaking at the blade dovetail lower edges and for uniformly distributing surface stresses over the dovetail slot surface radially inward thereof is dependent on the crush load distribution, coefficient of friction at the interface of the bearing surfaces, pressure angle of this interface, etc., of a particular engine design. Such undercut contour features are determined by known techniques, such as finite element and boundary element analysis, photoelastic testing, etc. Id. at col. 4,11. 32-42. Additionally, Juenger discloses that the break angle 40 is a particularly important contour feature of the undercut for achieving the advantages described. Id. at col. 4,11. 43—56. Thus, Juenger discloses that the size and shape of the undercuts are optimized by changing 5 Appeal 2016-003697 Application 13/627,036 the break angle and also based on various features of a particular engine design. Optimization based on the particular engine design suggests that the optimum size and shape of the undercuts are based, in part, on the size and shape of the rotor root. Juenger does not otherwise describe how the undercut size, groove size, and root size are related, and Juenger does not provide any explicit indication that the ratio of cross-sectional area of the groove to cross-sectional area of the root is taken into consideration in optimizing the size and shape of the undercuts to achieve the desired results. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that an increase in the size of the undercuts is necessarily directly proportional to the claimed ratio such that optimization of the undercut size is the same as an optimization of the claimed ratio, which would be required for us to determine that the claimed ratio is somehow recognized as a result effective variable. Based on Juenger’s disclosures noted above, we agree with Appellants that one would not consider the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the groove to the cross-sectional area of the root in optimizing the size and shape of Juenger’s undercuts. See Reply Br. 2. For the reasons discussed, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Bifulco, Frankel, and Juenger. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4—11, and 13—20 for the same reasons. Claims 3 and 12 The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 12 as obvious over Frankel in view of Sheridan and as obvious over Bifulco in view of Frankel, Juenger, and Sheridan. In each rejection, the Examiner relies on Sheridan as teaching a geared architecture. Final Act. 6. The Examiner’s rejections of these claims does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 6 Appeal 2016-003697 Application 13/627,036 as discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 3 and 12 for the reasons discussed above. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 for the reasons discussed above. REVERSED 7