Ex Parte Berczik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2017

13116093 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 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.
13/116,093 05/26/2011 Douglas M. Berczik 67097-1437PUS1;
53518US01
4769
54549 7590 08/23/2017
TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS/PR ATT fr WHTTNFY
EXAMINER
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
SEHN, MICHAEL L
Birmingham, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2017 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 DOUGLAS M. BERCZIK, GABRIEL L. SUCIU,
BRIAN D. MERRY, ALVANOS IOANNIS, and CHRISTOPHER M. DYE
Appeal 2015-008210
Application 13/116,093
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—22, 26, and 27, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Mar. 30, 2015), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 11,
2015), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 26, 2011), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 16, 2015) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 4, 2014).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-008210
Application 13/116,093
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “relates to a gas turbine engine, and more
particularly to Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC) components therefor.”
Spec. 11.
Claims 1,11, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
(Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.)) is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal,
and is reproduced below (with added bracketing and paragraphing for
clarity):
1. A Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) airfoil segment
for a gas turbine engine comprising:
[(a)] a box shape CMC fiber geometry which defines a
rectilinear pressure side bond line and a rectilinear suction side
bond line,
[(b)] the airfoil segment defines a pressure side portion of
a first airfoil and a suction side portion of a second airfoil,
wherein said pressure side portion on said airfoil segment is
configured to mate with a suction side portion of a second
airfoil segment to form said first airfoil.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—10, and 27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kensuke (JPH 07189607 (A), pub.
July 28, 1995) and Pietraszkiewicz (US 7,322,796 B2, iss. Jan. 29, 2008).
Final Act. 3.
Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kensuke, Pietraszkiewicz, and Blazek (US 4,195,396, iss.
Apr. 1, 1980). Id. at 7.
Claims 11—13, 17—19, 21, 22, and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Das (US 7,122,224 B2, iss.
2
Appeal 2015-008210
Application 13/116,093
Oct. 17, 2006), Kensuke, and Pietraszkiewicz, and evidenced by Morrison
(US 2005/0254942 Al, pub. Nov. 17, 2005). Id.
Claims 14—16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Das, Kensuke, Pietraszkiewicz, Morrison, and
Vance (US 7,452,182 B2, iss. Nov. 18, 2008). Id. at 14.
Claim 20 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Das, Kensuke, Pietraszkiewicz, and Vance. Id. at 13.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4—10, and27
After considering the positions expressed by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Answer, and by the Appellants in the Appeal and Reply Briefs,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kensuke and Pietraszkiewicz.
The Examiner finds that Kensuke discloses the CMC airfoil segment
comprising a box shape geometry with inherent bond lines, as required by
limitation (a) of claim 1. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner acknowledges that
Kensuke does not disclose the airfoil segment defining a pressure side
portion of a first airfoil configured to mate with a suction side portion of the
second airfoil, as required by limitation (b). Id. The Examiner relies on
Pietraszkiewicz’s Figure 2 for disclosing this, determining that one of
ordinary skill in the art would modify Kensuke’s airfoil with the teachings of
Pietraszkiewicz “for the purpose of eliminating parting gaps between
adjacent airfoil segments, thus preventing unwanted leakage and eliminating
the need for seals between the segments.” Id. at 4—5. In response to the
Appellants’ arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner
3
Appeal 2015-008210
Application 13/116,093
further finds that “the segments of Kensuke are arranged similar to Figure l3
of Pietraszkiewicz, wherein multiple segments are arranged side-by-side
with gaps (20) between each segment.” Ans. 2. The Examiner thus finds
that modifying Kensuke with Pietraszkiewicz would result in “the seam
where the segments are joined [being] changed from between the airfoils
(Figure 1) to within the airfoils (Figure 2 [of Pietraszkiewicz]).” Id.
Kensuke discloses, in its Abstract,
A high temperature passage part component for a gas turbine is
provided with preform for an inner end wall 12 which consists of
ceramic fiber as a material, the preforms for an outer end wall 13
and a stationary blade effective part 14, a connection body 26
which consists of the ceramic fiber to connect these two preforms
each other at the connecting part, and a ceramic matrix which is
impregnate-solidified to each preform connected by the
connection body 26.
A benefit of this is to improve efficiency by reducing the number of parts
and cooled air leakage. Id.
Pietraszkiewicz discloses a method for forming a component for use
in a gas turbine, the structure comprising joining two formed aerodynamic
structures “so that the airfoil suction side structure mates with the airfoil
pressure side structure to form an airfoil.” Pietraszkiewicz, Abstract.
Pietraszkiewicz discloses that prior art turbines’ vanes, as shown in Figure 1,
are mated along the platform edges whereby, during assembly, undesirable
gaps may form between adjacent ones of the platform edges. Id., col. 1,
11. 10-18, col. 2,11. 6—7. Pietraszkiewicz’s invention, as shown in Figure 2,
eliminates platform gaps. Id., col. 1,11. 19-27, col. 2,11. 8—9.
3 Figure 1 of Pietraszkiewicz is disclosed as depicting typical turbine blades
known in the prior art. Pietraszkiewicz, col. 1,11. 9-13.
4
Appeal 2015-008210
Application 13/116,093
Although the Examiner finds that Kensuke’s structure is shown as the
prior art to which Pietraszkiewicz’s Figure 1 refers, the Examiner has not
adequately explained or supported that finding. Kensuke discloses preforms
connected by the connection body 26 (Kensuke, Abstract), but it is not
apparent that this is the same structure that Pietraszkiewicz discloses as prior
art. And the Examiner does not explain how or why it must necessarily be
so, by, for example, referencing support in either Kensuke or
Pietraszkiewicz. As such, we find merit in the Appellants’ argument that
Kensuke’s blade portions appear to be formed from a unitary sleeve, and that
there is no disclosure that they are formed from multiple segments arranged
as asserted by the Examiner. See Reply Br. 1. Therefore, we find that the
Examiner has not adequately explained, and we do not understand, how
Kensuke is being modified with Pietraszkiewicz to disclose the claimed
invention.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4—10, and 27.
Independent claims 11 and 17 include limitations similar to the
limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 10, 11 (Claims App.). The Examiner
relies on the same findings regarding Kensuke and Pietraszkiewicz for these
limitations. See Final Act. 8—11. Thus, for the same reasons as for claim 1,
we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
11 and 17 and dependent claims 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 26.
The Examiner also relies on the same findings of claims 1,11, and 17
regarding Kensuke and Pietraszkiewicz for the rejections of dependent
claims 3, 14—16, and 20. See Final Act. 7, 13, 14. Thus, for the same
reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,
5
Appeal 2015-008210
Application 13/116,093
11, and 17, we also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 3, 14—
16, and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim
1-22, 26, and 27 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
6