Ex Parte MCFEAT et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 2, 2019

14075555 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/075,555 11/08/2013 138462 7590 01/04/2019 ANSALDO/STUDIO TORTA c/o BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC P.O. BOX 1404 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313 Jose Anguisola MCFEAT 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. 0087748-000074 8670 EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2019 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): ADIPDOCl@BIPC.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSE ANGUISOLA McFEAT, JORG KRUCKELS, ROLAND DUCKERSHOFF, and BRIAN KENNETH WARDLE Appeal2018-001807 Application 14/075,555 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1--4. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant claims a method for producing a blade for a gas turbine by a casting technique. App. Br. 2-6. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on 1 Appellant is the applicant, Alstom Technology Ltd. Application Data Sheet filed November 8, 2013. According to the Appeal Brief, ANSALDO ENERGIA IP UK LIMITED is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed June 16, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2. Appeal2018-001807 Application 14/075,555 appeal and is reproduced below with contested language italicized: 1. A method for producing a blade for a gas turbine by a casting technique, the blade having a leading edge and a trailing edge, and an interior cavity, which is delimited by internal surfaces, for guiding cooling air therethrough, wherein for improving the transfer of heat between the wall of the blade and the cooling air, a multiplicity of members, which are formed on the wall to improve cooling, are arranged in a distributed manner in the region of the trailing edge and project from the internal surfaces into the cavity, the members extending into the cavity in a direction which can be freely selected within an angular range, the method comprising: providing a core mold for forming a casting core which keeps the cavity of the blade free; producing the casting core by means of the core mold; removing the casting core from the core mold; and casting the blade by the casting core, wherein: the provided core mold comprises two mold halves, which during demolding are drawn apart in a first direction; at least one mold insert, which is provided for forming the members, is arranged in the mold halves in the trailing edge region, and wherein the method comprises: separating the mold halves in the first direction while the mold insert is still attached to the core, and subsequently removing the mold insert from the casting core in a second direction which differs from the first direction, and removing the casting core from the core mold. App. Br. Claims Appendix 1 ( emphasis added). The Examiner sets forth the rejection of claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Beeck et al. (DE 101 29 975 Al, published July 4, 2002) (hereinafter "Beeck")2 in the Final Office Action entered 2 Although the Examiner refers to this reference as "DE 101 29 975," we refer to this reference as "Beeck," the first named inventor. Citations to Beeck in this Decision refer to the machine translation of the description 2 Appeal2018-001807 Application 14/075,555 August 10, 2016 ("Final Act."), and maintains the rejection in the Examiner's Answer entered October 6, 2017 ("Ans."). DISCUSSION Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of Appellant's contentions, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below, and reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and below. We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence Appellant provides for each ground of rejection Appellant contests. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) ( cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, "it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections")). Claim 1 Beeck discloses casting mold 1 ( core mold) for the core ( casting core) of a gas turbine blade. Beeck 1, Fig. Beeck discloses that casting mold 1 (core mold) comprises upper mold parts 20, 30 and lower mold part 10, which together form mold cavity 50. Id. Beeck explains that cavity 50 has very highly curved contours, making it necessary to provide two upper mold entered into the record of parent application 12/961,659 on February 27, 2012. 3 Appeal2018-001807 Application 14/075,555 parts 20, 30 "to enable a perfect demolding." Id. Beeck explains that the opening directions of mold parts 20, 30 are shown by arrows A in Beeck's Figure. Id. at 2; Fig. Beeck discloses that mold cavity 50 includes trailing edge contour section 56 and leading edge contour section 55, which lie in the transition regions between lower mold part 10 and upper mold parts 20, 30. Id. at 1; Fig. Beeck discloses that upper mold part 20 and lower mold part 10 include recesses 12, 22, respectively, near trailing edge contour section 56, and Beeck discloses placing removable upper and lower inserts 60, 70 in the respective recesses. Id. at 2; Fig. Beeck discloses that inserts 60, 70 include indents 62, 72 (members) that project into mold cavity 50 and optimize heat transfer in the trailing edge of a turbine blade produced from a core ( casting core) formed from casting mold 1. Id. at 1-2; Fig. Beeck discloses that upper and lower inserts 60, 70 can be replaced with upper and lower inserts 80, 90 that have different indent geometries 82, 92 than inserts 60, 70, which allows turbine blade cores ( casting cores) with varied geometry in the trailing edge region to be manufactured with a single set of upper and lower casting mold ( core mold) parts. Id. at 2; Fig. The Examiner finds that lower insert 70 illustrated in Beeck's drawing would be removed in a direction (the "insert" direction in the Examiner's annotated figure) that differs from the A direction in which upper mold part 20 is removed, which the Examiner finds corresponds to separating mold halves in a first direction (A direction) and removing a mold insert in a second direction (insert direction) that differs from the first direction, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5-9. 4 Appeal2018-001807 Application 14/075,555 The Examiner finds that Beeck "does not explicitly teach separating the die (mold) halves and 'subsequently' removing the mold insert from the casting core." Final Act. 4. Appellant, however, does not dispute the Examiner's finding that "[a]s clearly shown in the Figure of [Beeck], the insert ( 60) either can be separated at the same time of the die separation or subsequently after the die separation." Compare Final Act. 4, with App. Br. 7-10 ( emphasis omitted). The Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the inserts at the same time or subsequently after die separation, since this would depend on the design choice of the insert location." Final Act. 4 ( emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that "contrary to the Examiner's assertion, the mold inserts 60, 70 are removed in the same direction (arrow A) and inserted in the same direction (arrow A) as the direction in which the mold halves 10, 20 are separated." App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends, as best understood, 3 that it would not be possible, due to the geometry and shape of mold halves 10, 20, to insert and remove upper insert 60 in a 3 Appellant mischaracterizes the Examiner's position. App. Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant argues that "the Examiner alleged that the mold inserts 60, 70 of [Beeck] correspond to the mold halves as recited in claim 1 ... the Examiner alleged that the insert 60 could be removed in the 'A direction,' which is different from the 'Insert direction."' Id. Contrary to Appellant's assertions, as discussed above, the Examiner finds that lower insert 70 illustrated in Beeck's drawing would be removed in a direction ("insert" direction) that differs from the A direction in which upper mold part 20 is removed. Final Act. 5. Thus, the Examiner does not find that mold inserts 60, 70 correspond to mold halves. Nor does the Examiner find that insert 60 could be removed in the A direction. Furthermore, although Appellant refers to "mold 60" and "mold 70" (App. Br. 8-9), reference numerals 60 and 70 in Beeck's Figure refer to inserts, and reference numerals 10, 20, and 30 refer to mold parts. 5 Appeal2018-001807 Application 14/075,555 direction other than the A direction in which mold halves 10, 20 are removed. App. Br. 8-10. Appellant asserts that "top mold 60 must be removed in the A direction, and must be inserted in the A direction, or else the molds 60, 70 would not be arranged together as shown [in Beeck's Figure] ... If the top mold 60 was inserted in the 'Insert direction,' the lower portion of the top mold 60 ... would not be arranged in the manner shown [in Beeck's Figure]." App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 4---6. Although Appellant's arguments focus largely on the insertion and removal direction of upper insert 60, as the Examiner correctly finds, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that lower insert 70 illustrated in Beeck's Figure would be removed in a direction (the "insert" direction in the Examiner's annotated Figure) that differs from the removal direction of upper mold part 20 (the A direction), due to the shape of lower insert 7 0 and its orientation in recess 12 of mold part 10. Appellant's arguments are therefore unpersuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), which we accordingly sustain. Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that the second direction is perpendicular to the internal surface which is associated with the members. Appellant argues that "[ n ]either the 'Insert direction' nor the 'A direction' proposed by the Examiner [is] perpendicular to the internal surface associated with members formed on the wall for improving cooling." App. Br. 10. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because Beeck's Figure supports the Examiner's finding. As shown in in Beeck's Figure, indents 72 (members) on lower insert 70 project into mold cavity 50 in a direction 6 Appeal2018-001807 Application 14/075,555 parallel to the sides of lower insert 70. The sides of the insert are substantially perpendicular to an internal surface of the lower insert 70 that forms a portion of the internal surface of mold cavity 50. As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that lower insert 70 would be removed in a direction (the "insert" direction) parallel to the sides and corresponding to a ( second) direction perpendicular to the internal surface of lower insert 70, which forms a portion of the internal surface of mold cavity 50 associated with indents 72 (members), as recited in claim 2. Therefore, Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), which we accordingly sustain. Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites that the at least one mold insert remains in the casting core when the mold halves are drawn apart in the first direction. Appellant argues in the Appeal Brief that the "Examiner did not provide a rationale for rejecting claim 4." App. Br. 11. In the Answer, in response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner repeats the rationale provided in the Final Action that Beeck's Figure shows that insert 60 can be separated either at the time when the mold parts are separated, or after separation of the mold halves, and, therefore, "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the inserts at the same time or subsequently after die separation, since this would depend on the design choice of the insert location." Ans. 9. Because Appellant does not dispute 7 Appeal2018-001807 Application 14/075,555 the Examiner's factual findings or reasoning (Reply Br. 2-7), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a). Claim 3 Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites that a plurality of mold inserts are arranged in the mold halves and during demolding are withdrawn from the formed casting core in different directions which differ from the first direction. The Examiner finds that the lower insert (insert 70) disclosed in Beeck is withdrawn in a different direction than mold part 20. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5-9. Although ( as discussed above) the Examiner is correct that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that lower insert 70 illustrated in Beeck's Figure would be removed in a direction (the "insert" direction in the Examiner's annotated Figure) that differs from the removal direction of upper mold part 20 (the A direction), lower insert 70 is a single insert, rather than a plurality of mold inserts, as required by claim 3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that upper insert 60 disclosed in Beeck would be removed in a direction that is substantially the same as the removal direction of upper mold part 20--the A direction----due to the orientation of upper mold part 20, and the resulting orientation of recess 22 in upper mold part 20 in which upper insert 60 is positioned. Thus, Beeck's Figure illustrates a single insert (lower insert 70) that would be removed in a direction that differs from the removal direction of a mold part. Accordingly, on this appeal record, the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that Beeck discloses or would have suggested a plurality of mold inserts arranged in mold halves that are 8 Appeal2018-001807 Application 14/075,555 withdrawn from a casting core in different directions, which differ from a first direction in which mold halves are drawn apart, as required by claim 3. We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) and reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9