Ex Parte Eleftheriou et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2019

13189059 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/189,059 07/22/2011 Andreas Eleftheriou
32292 7590 01/28/2019
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP (PWC)
1, PLACE VILLE MARIE
SUITE 2500
MONTREAL, QC H3B IRI
CANADA
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.
05002993-1395US JR/tb 9448
EXAMINER
BEEBE, JOSHUA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2019 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):
ipcanada@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS ELEFTHERIOU, BARRY BARNETT,
JOE LANZINO, TOM MCDONOUGH, GEORGE GUGLELMIN,
ENZO MACCHIA, and MELINDA EISSINGER
Appeal2018-005224 1
Application 13/189,0592
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1, 5-18, 20-25, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Jan. 25,
2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Apr. 20, 2018), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Feb. 23, 2018), and the Non-Final Office Action
("Non-Final Act.," mailed Mar. 23, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Pratt & Whitney
Canada Corp. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005224
Application 13/189,059
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he application relates generally to gas
turbine engines, and more particularly to components, such as airfoils, used
in gas turbine engines." Spec. ,r 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 21, 22, and 27 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A compressor stator for a gas turbine engine, the stator
compnsmg:
an annular outer shroud, an annular inner shroud located
radially inwardly of and concentric with the outer shroud, a
plurality of hybrid vanes each including an airfoil extending
between a vane root retained in the outer shroud and a vane tip
retained in the inner shroud; the outer shroud, the inner shroud,
the airfoil, the vane root, and the vane tip all being formed of a
core of a non-metallic substrate fully encapsulated by a
nanocrystalline metal shell topcoat, the substrate being formed
of a polymer, the nanocrystalline metal shell topcoat defining
outer surfaces of each of the inner shroud, the outer shroud, the
airfoil, the vane root, and the vane tip.
Appeal Br. 14.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 15-17, 20, 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Cairo 3 in view ofKunz4 and Simmons. 5
3 Cairo et al., US 2008/0170943 Al, pub. July 17, 2008.
4 Kunz et al., US 4,655,682, iss. Apr. 7, 1987.
5 Simmons, US 4,063,847, iss. Dec. 20, 1977.
2
Appeal2018-005224
Application 13/189,059
2. The Examiner rejects claims 6-10, 13, 14, 21, 23, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Cairo in view of Kunz, Simmons,
and Palumbo. 6
3. The Examiner rejects claims 11, 12, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Cairo in view of Kunz, Simmons, Palumbo, and
Smith.7
4. The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Cairo in view of Kunz, Simmons, and Tomantschger. 8
5. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Cairo in view of Kunz, Simmons, and Darrow. 9
DISCUSSION
Appellants rely on the same arguments with respect to all independent
claims on appeal. See Appeal Br. 5-12. We address claim 1 below, and our
analysis is equally applicable to the other independent claims.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cairo teaches a
compressor stator for a gas turbine engine including a plurality of hybrid
vanes with airfoils extending between a vane root and a vane tip and
including a non-metallic substrate for each that is "fully encapsulated by a
nano-cystalline metal shell topcoat" to achieve the benefits of hardness and
wear resistance. Non-Final Act. 4--5 (citing Cairo ,r,r 4, 18-21, 23, 24). The
Examiner also finds that Cairo discloses attachment structures, i.e., spindles
and trunnions, which indicate that the vanes are attached to inner and outer
6 Palumbo et al., US 7,354,354 B2, iss. Apr. 8, 2008.
7 Smith et al., US 5,881,972, iss. Mar. 16, 1999.
8 Tomantschger et al., US 2010/0304171 Al, pub. Dec. 2, 2010.
9 Darrow et al., US 4,023,249, iss. May 17, 1977.
3
Appeal2018-005224
Application 13/189,059
shrouds, "which are well known in the art parts of a compressor." Id. at 5.
However, the Examiner acknowledges that Cairo does not teach the use of
inner and outer shrouds "composed of a non-metallic substrate core that is
fully encapsulated with a topcoat of the nano-crystalline metal." Id.
The Examiner next finds that both Kunz and Simmons teach the use
composite shrouds that provide the advantage of having lighter weight than
metallic shrouds. Id. (citing Kunz col. 1, 11. 32--49; col. 2, 11. 33-50; col. 4,
11. 3-14, 34--49; Simmons col. 1, 11. 1-27). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to use composite shrouds with metallic topcoats
with vanes of Cairo in order to achieve both the benefit of a lighter weight
shroud and the benefits of hardness and wear resistance provided by the
topcoat. Id. at 5---6.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner findings and conclusions with
respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 2-6; see also Ans. 2-
7. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants
arguments.
Appellants first argue that Cairo does not teach and the Examiner has
improperly inferred "the presence of inner and outer shroud rings in Cairo."
Appeal Br. 8. Appellants assert that the Examiner's finding in this regard is
speculative, and to the extent the Examiner's is taking official notice that
shrouds are well known features, Appellants assert that "the Examiner has
not exercised the caution required by [the] MPEP and other authorities when
taking official notice of facts not on the record." Id. at 8-9.
We are not persuaded of error for the reasons provided by the
Examiner. See Ans. 2-5. In particular, we agree that Cairo and the
modifying references make clear that the use of inner and outer shrouds is
4
Appeal2018-005224
Application 13/189,059
well known, and are, in fact, contemplated by the disclosure of Cairo. For
example, Cairo discloses a compressor and vanes in a compressor, and Cairo
discloses that the vanes have spindle and trundle portions. See Cairo ,r,r 1,
1 7, 18. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that such vanes would be attached to inner and outer
shrouds in a compressor with the spindle and trundle portions even though
Cairo does not expressly disclose inner and outer shroud portions. See
Ans. 3. We also agree that the other art of record makes clear that the use of
inner and outer shrouds were known in the art. See, e.g., Kunz col. 1, 11. 17-
25. Thus, one of ordinary skill would recognize that a mounted vane in a
compressor, as in Cairo, is mounted between inner and outer shrouds.
Second, Appellants argue that Cairo teaches only coating the airfoil
and does not support the Examiner's findings regarding coating other
portions of the platform or shroud. Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellants assert that
"[ n ]othing disclosed by Cairo suggests any benefit or advantage associated
with extending the metal coating beyond the airfoil, and Cairo provides no
motivation ... to do so." Id. at 10. We are not persuaded of error for the
reasons provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 5-7. In particular, the
Examiner makes clear that support for the rejection is found in the
combination of art, and not in Cairo alone. Specifically, the Examiner notes
that Cairo "acknowledges the use of a metal coating to protect composite
elements, and the benefits of such." Ans. 6. The Examiner acknowledges
that Cairo only applies a metal coating to the airfoil. Id. However, the
Examiner relies on the modifying references to show the use of composite
materials for the inner and outer shrouds in order to reduce the weight of the
compressor. Id. And the Examiner concludes that it would have been
5
Appeal2018-005224
Application 13/189,059
obvious to not only construct the shrouds of composite materials as taught
by Kunz and Simmons, but to also coat the shrouds in a metallic topcoat as
taught by Cairo in order to gain both the benefits of reduced weight as well
as the hardness and corrosion resistance that the metallic coating provides.
Id. at 6-7. Thus, Appellants argument regarding Cairo alone does not
persuade us of error the rejection, which relies on the teachings of each of
the references to conclude that the claimed metallic coating would have been
obvious.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. As indicated
above, Appellants rely on the same arguments for the rejections of the other
independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent
claims 21, 22, and 27. Further, Appellants do not provide separate
arguments regarding any dependent claims, and thus, we sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 5-18, 20, and 23-25.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1, 5-18, 20-25, and 27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6