Ex Parte Allen-Bradley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2012

11415892 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

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. 11/415,892 05/02/2006 Eunice Allen-Bradley 67097-937PUS1:00901 6777 54549 7590 11/29/2012 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EUNICE ALLEN-BRADLEY, ERIC A. GROVER, and THOMAS J. PRAISNER ____________ Appeal 2010-005101 Application 11/415,892 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-005101 Application 11/415,892 2 REJECTIONS The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review. Claims 1, 8, 11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kvasnak (US 6,419,446 B1, iss. Jul. 16, 2002). Claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kvasnak and Zess (US 6,969,232 B2, iss. Nov. 29, 2005). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A blade or vane for a turbine engine comprising a platform and an airfoil extending from the platform, the airfoil including: A) a part span portion having: a) a pressure surface offset in a first direction from a part span mean camber line by a pressure surface offset distance; and b) a suction surface offset in a second direction from the part span mean camber line by a suction surface offset distance; and B) a base extending spanwisely a prescribed distance from the platform, the base being laterally enlarged exclusively in the first direction. Claim 11 recites “[a] blade or vane for a turbine engine” including an “airfoil . . . having a laterally enlarged base extending spanwisely a prescribed distance from the at least one platform.” Appeal 2010-005101 Application 11/415,892 3 OPINION1 In regards to claim 1, the Examiner finds Kvasnak “disclose[s] a base (48) extending spanwisely from the platform which is laterally enlarged exclusively in the first direction.” Ans. 3-4. Similarly for claim 11, the Examiner finds that Kvasnak’s “airfoil has a laterally enlarged base (48) extending spanwisely a prescribed distance from the platform.” Ans. 4. The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding that fillet 48 corresponds to the claimed “base” of claims 1 and 11 is incorrect because fillet 48 is not part of Kvasnak’s airfoil 28. App. Br. 4-5. Indeed, Kvasnak describes that “fillet 48 . . . extends lengthwise out from the leading edge 50 of the airfoil 28 and heightwise along the leading edge 50 of the airfoil 28.” App. Br. 5, (citing to Kvasnak, col. 4, ll. 23-25). This description identifies fillet 48 as a separate and distinct structure from airfoil 28. Id. In response, the Examiner explains that the claimed term “base” is not construed to be a part of the airfoil. Ans. 7. At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s construction of claims 1 and 11 with regard to the base is incorrect. The claimed term “base,” as recited in claims 1 and 11, is part of the airfoil. Additionally, the Appellants’ Specification is consistent with this construction of claims 1 and 11, e.g., the Specification states “[t]he airfoil also includes . . . a base 146.” Spec. 15, ll. 7-9, see Spec. fig. 12. As such, the Appellants’ contention is persuasive because Kvasnak’s fillet 48 is not part of airfoil 28. Thus, the 1 The Reply Brief filed May 2, 2006 has not been entered because the Appellants’ Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 for Consideration of the Reply Brief filed May 2, 2006 was denied. Decision on Petition, mailed June 22, 2010. Appeal 2010-005101 Application 11/415,892 4 rejection of claim 1 and of its dependent claim 8, and of claim 11 and of its dependent claims 16 and 19, as anticipated by Kvasnak is not sustained. The remaining rejection of claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kvasnak and Zess relies on the same unsubstantiated finding regarding Kvasnak’s fillet 48 as a part of the airfoil 28. More specifically, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 includes a finding that Zess teaches the further particulars of the claimed “base.” Ans. 6, 8-9. This finding rests on the misconstruction of the claimed term “base” as separate and distinct from the claimed airfoil. Supra. The Examiner determines, inter alia, that the pressure side of Zess’ fillet F could be used to modify the airfoil of Kvasnak. Ans. 6, 8-9. However, Zess’ fillet, like Kvasnak’s fillet 48, is not the understood to be a part of the airfoil. See Zess, col. 4, ll. 19-22 (Zess discloses fillet F and airfoil 103 as separate and distinct structures). The Examiner appears to acknowledge this understanding of terminology by stating, “[f]illets of all shapes and sizes are used between airfoil sections and platforms.” Ans. 8. As such, the Examiner’s determination with respect to claim 2 does not remedy the unsubstantiated finding discussed above with respect to claim 1. Thus, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kvasnak and Zess. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-20. REVERSED mls