Ex Parte Lumpkin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 6, 2018

13556313 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/556,313 07/24/2012 7788 7590 General Electric Company Attn: ERNEST CUSICK 1 Research Circle Kl-3A60 Niskayuna, NY 12309 09/10/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jamie Dean Lumpkin 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. 261553 1779 EXAMINER SEHN, MICHAEL L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/10/2018 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): shannon.cannizzaro@ge.com ernest.cusick@ge.com gpo.mail@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMIE DEAN LUMPKIN, THOMAS ROBBIN TINTON, and KELVIN RONO AARON 1 Appeal2017-011087 Application 13/556,313 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21. Br. 5. Claims 2, 6, 8-13, 16, and 19 have been canceled. See Amendments dated March 30, 2015, June 8, 2015, and October 12, 2015 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Electric Company. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-011087 Application 13/556,313 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates generally to turbomachinery, and more particularly relates to an article of manufacture configured for use with turbomachines." Spec. ,r 1. Apparatus claims 1, 15, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An article of manufacture comprising: a rotor blade configured for use with a turbomachine, the rotor blade configured for attachment to a rotor wheel; wherein, the rotor blade is configured to substantially reduce the possibility of attachment with an undesired third component by modification of at least one characteristic of the rotor blade, so that the modification of the at least one characteristic of the rotor blade is matched by a complementary characteristic of the rotor wheel, the at least one characteristic of the rotor blade comprising at least one of, neck width, platform length, platform angle, platform height, tang height, tang depth and circumferential width. REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Koertge et al. us 5,197,856 Mar. 30, 1993 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Koertge. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Koertge. 2 Appeal 2017-011087 Application 13/556,313 ANALYSIS The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 as anticipated by Koertge Appellants argue claims 1,3-5, 7, 15, 17, 18,20,and21 together. Br. 12-16. We select independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner provides an annotation of Koertge's Figure 4 stating "the figure reasonably discloses that one length is greater than the other, and thus the possibility of attachment of the blade with the greater platform length with the rotor wheel with the shorter platform length is reduced."2 Final Act. 3. Appellants acknowledge, "[ t ]he neck widths of these rotor blades may be drawn differently," but nevertheless contend, "there is no teaching or disclosure in Koertge of different neck widths." Br. 13. Appellants' statement addressing differently drawn neck widths yet contending that there is no disclosure of different neck widths belies the difference in neck widths that are depicted in Figure 4 of Koertge, and which are identified by the Examiner in the annotation of same. See above. Appellants seek to clarify by stating that the Examiner's analysis is "based solely on the drawings." Br. 13. Appellants state, "[p ]atent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the 2 The Examiner initially identified the differently sized rotor blade components as both being a "Platform Length" (Final Act. 3), but later, this was corrected to "neck width." Ans. 2. This confusion apparently stemmed from Appellants' Figure 3 which uses reference numeral 3 50 to identify both a "platform length" and a "neck width." Appellants' Specification, on the other hand, identifies "platform length" as reference numeral 350 and "neck width" as reference numeral 330. See Spec. ,r,r 22, 23. 3 Appeal 2017-011087 Application 13/556,313 issue. Koertge is completely silent on this issue." Br. 13. Appellants acknowledge, however, the Examiner's statement, "[t]he drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2125." Br. 13 (citation omitted). Appellants replicate MPEP Â§ 2125 in its entirety. See Br. 13-15. Paragraph I thereof states, "it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification" because the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest. See also Br. 14; In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) ("[W]e did not mean that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded."). Paragraph II of MPEP Â§ 2125, on the other hand, coincides with Appellants' contention stating "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue." See also Br. 14 (referencing Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'!, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Appellants reference Paragraph II stating "arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value." Br. 15 ( citing MPEP Â§ 2125 and referencing Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956). Appellants conclude that because "patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements," such drawings "may not be relied on to show particular sizes" due to Koertge's silence in the matter. Br. 15-16. "Thus, Appellant respectfully submits that Koertge does not teach, suggest or disclose all [the] features of the claimed embodiment." Br. 16. The Examiner, however, sees things differently. The Examiner states that "dimensions of the neck widths are not used in making the rejection" 4 Appeal 2017-011087 Application 13/556,313 and that "only the relative sizes of the neck widths are used." Ans. 2. More to the point, the Examiner, referencing Koertge's Figure 4, states, "the neck width of the first stage rotor blade is larger than the neck width of the second stage rotor blade." Ans. 2. Thus, "Koertge does reasonably disclose (in Figure 4) the different sizes of the neck widths, and these different sizes reduce the possibility of attaching the first stage rotor blade to the second stage rotor wheel." Ans. 3. Appellants do not further indicate how the Examiner erred by relying on "precise proportions" or "particular sizes" or "measurement of the drawing feature[s]" (see Br. 14--15), rather than, as stated, the "relative sizes of the neck widths" disclosed in Koertge's Figure 4. Ans. 2. We conclude, based on the arguments presented, that the Examiner has the better of this matter. This is because there is no evidence that the Examiner relied on any specific neck width proportion, size, or measurement, but instead, the Examiner noted where Koertge ( whether or not unintended or unexplained) discloses a difference in adjacent rotor blade neck widths. See Final Act. 3. We agree with the Examiner that these neck width differences would "reduce the possibility of attaching the first stage rotor blade to the second stage rotor wheel." Ans. 3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 as being anticipated by Koertge. The rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable over Koertge Claim 14 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites, "wherein the turbomachine is a turbine." Appellants contend, "[t]he deficiencies of Koertge were discussed above and are referenced herein." Br. 1 7. However, as indicated above, we are not persuaded there are deficiencies in 5 Appeal 2017-011087 Application 13/556,313 the teachings of Koertge. Appellants also contend, "If anything, Koertge actually teaches away from the presently claimed invention by disclosing, in Figures 1-11, that the rotor blades 18 and corresponding section of rotor 14 all have the exact same shape." Br. 17. Thus, "Appellant respectfully submits that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established." Br. 17. Even presuming each of Koertge' s rotor blades have the same shape, their having the same outline is not the same as their being of the same size, or their being interchangeable with each other (Koertge discloses one bigger than the other). More importantly, however, Appellants' do not explain how the above statement (i.e., Koertge teaches away because the blades "all have the exact same shape") is relevant or germane to the claim 14 limitation reciting "wherein the turbomachine is a turbine." In any event, Appellants' statement is not persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 as being obvious over Koertge. DECISION TheExaminer'srejectionsofclaims 1, 3-5, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18,20, and 21 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal (see 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )) may be extended (see 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv)). AFFIRMED 6