Ex Parte Billotey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 18, 2017

13256371 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 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. 13/256,371 09/13/2011 Geoffroy Louis Henri Marie Billotey 385653US41X PCT 2591 22850 7590 08/22/2017 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER SEABE, JUSTIN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2017 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): patentdocket @ oblon. com oblonpat @ oblon. com tfarrell@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEOFFROY LOUIS HENRI MARIE BILLOTEY, JEAN-PHILIPPE OUSTY, and NICOLAS ROCHUON Appeal 2015-006066 Application 13/256,3711 Technology Center 3700 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges. KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 9-162. Appellant’s representative, in accordance with 37 CFR § 41.47, presented oral arguments on August 9, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is TURBOMECA. App. Br. 1. 2 The rejection of claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 based upon Wiley, U.S. Patent No. 4,819,884, issued Apr. 11, 1989, was withdrawn by the Examiner in the Advisory Action dated Dec. 10, 2014. Adv. Act. 2; see also App. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-006066 Application 13/256,371 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to turbomachine compressors having a centrifugal or mixed (axial-centrifugal) compression stage. Spec. 1:5-7. Claim 9, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below and is representative of the claimed subject matter: 9. A moving wheel for a centrifugal or mixed axial- centrifugal compressor of a turbomachine, comprising: a base on which a plurality of blades extending between a leading edge and a trailing edge and each blade including a foot which fixes the respective blade to the base and a free head, the trailing edge being inclined at the foot of the blade by a slope angle a with respect to a meridian plane that passes through the trailing edge at the foot of the blade, in a direction of rotation of the compressor, wherein the trailing edge has at the head of the blade a slope angle (3 that is less than the slope angle a at the blade foot so as to apply a curvature to the trailing edge between the foot of the blade and the head of the blade. App. Br. Claim App. i. EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Blair Larson Decker US 4,502,837 US 4,923,370 US 2010/0263373 A1 Mar. 5, 1985 May 8,1990 Oct. 21,2010 2 Appeal 2015-006066 Application 13/256,371 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 1. Claims 9-11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Decker. 2. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Decker. 3. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blair and Decker. 4. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Larson and Decker. OPINION Rejection 1 In contesting the rejection of claims 9-11 and 13-15 as anticipated by Decker, Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 10, 11, and 13-15apart from their dependency from claim 9. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 7. We select claim 9 as representative of this group, and claims 10, 11, and 13-15 stand or fall with claim 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds, in the Final Action, all of the limitations of claim 9 are disclosed by Decker’s Figures 7 A, B, C and 8 A, B, C. Final Act. 3—4. The Examiner finds that Decker teaches a centrifugal compressor having a base 27 and blades 22 having leading and trailing edges. The Examiner describes the trailing edges taught by Decker and explains how the Examiner is interpreting Decker. See id. at 3—4 (“[T]he trailing edge being inclined at a foot of the blade by a slope angle alpha with respect to the meridian plane 3 Appeal 2015-006066 Application 13/256,371 (see Figures 7B-C and 8B-C where gradient at the base of the foot is angled) in a direction of rotation.”). The Examiner further explains that “the trailing edge [of Decker] has at the head of the blade (top of the cross-sections in Figures 7-8) a slope angle beta that is less than its slope angle alpha at the foot [of the blade].” Id. at 4. Appellants respond that “[i]n this case, the Examiner erred in finding that Decker teaches the claimed slope angle of the trailing edge.” App. Br. 4. Appellants argue that “Figures 7 and 8 do not describe the trailing edge of the blade. Instead, Figures 7-8 are directed to changing the thickness of the blade to change the blade frequency.” Id. at 5. (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 4. Appellants further argue that “Figures 7-8 are completely silent regarding the trailing edge angle . . . much less that the trailing edge has at the head of the blade a slope angle [3 that is less than the slope angle a . . . [to create] a curvature in the blade.” App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellants also include a copy of Figure 3 of the present application to illustrate their point. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3. In order to decide whether Decker discloses the claimed angles, we must first determine how one skilled in the art would understand these angles to be defined by reading the claim limitations pertaining to the angles in light of the Specification. “[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 4 Appeal 2015-006066 Application 13/256,371 Appellants’ Specification states that: a plurality of blades extending between a leading edge and a trailing edge are fixed by their feet, said trailing edge being inclined at the foot of the blade by a slope angle with respect to the meridian plane which passes through it at its foot, in the direction of rotation of said compressor, characterized in that the trailing edge has at the head of the blade a slope angle (3 which is less than its slope angle a at the blade foot. Spec. 3:17-25. Figure 3 is reproduced below: EZir* Qrig. O Appellants’ Figure 3 “is a front view of a trailing edge of a centrifugal compressor blade.” Spec. 5:5-6. Figure 3 shows a dashed horizontal line that connects the feet of the blades together as the meridian plane and vertical dashed lines perpendicular to the meridian plane. As illustrated, the angles a and (3 are measured from the vertical dashed lines. For comparison, a copy of Decker’s Figure 7C, with annotations added by the Board, is reproduced below: 5 Appeal 2015-006066 Application 13/256,371 Decker’s Figure 1C, as annotated, depicts a blade shape with reference numerals and lead lines removed for clarity. Decker ^ 37. The lines added illustrate our determination of what one having ordinary skill in the art would consider to correspond to the angles a and (3. As illustrated above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty in determining what constitutes angles a and (3 in Decker’s Figure 1C. Appellants’ argument that the angles cannot be determined is, thus, not persuasive. Further, Appellants’ argument regarding Figure 4 of Decker as 6 Appeal 2015-006066 Application 13/256,371 teaching a constant angle and a straight trailing edge is not responsive to the rejection as stated by the Examiner, which cites to Decker’s Figures 7 A, B, C and 8 A, B, C. Final Act. 3-4; App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5. Accordingly, these arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Whether the prior art specification describes the features shown in the drawings does not prevent the disclosure from being used to show that an invention is unpatentable. See In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (“[Tjhis court has stated that a drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims of a utility patent application even though the feature shown in the drawing was unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference patent.”). Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments as to the silence of Decker is not relevant to the analysis because the illustrations contained in the drawings are also part of the teachings of Decker and equally applicable. See id. (Drawings are “evaluate[d] ... on the basis of what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.”). For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 9 as anticipated by Decker. Claims 10, 11, and 13-15 fall with claim 9. Rejections 2^1 Claims 12 and 16 depend from claim 9, App. Br. Claims App. i-ii. Appellants do not separately contest the rejection of claim 12 (Rejection 2) or the rejection of claim 16 (Rejection 3 and 4). App. Br.7-8; Reply Br. 7- 8. Rather, Appellants argue that these claims are patentable based on their dependency from claim 9. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 7-8. We find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9 as anticipated by Decker. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above 7 Appeal 2015-006066 Application 13/256,371 for claim 9, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12 and 16. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8