Ex Parte Schwartz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

11872883 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

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.
11/872,883 10/16/2007 Brian J. Schwartz 67097-854;
PA-00004287-US
9682
54549 7590 09/26/2012
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
OMGBA, ESSAMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN J. SCHWARTZ, ROBERT E. ERICKSON,
PAUL R. FAUGHNAN JR., and BERNARD D. VAILLETTE
____________

Appeal 2010-009421
Application 11/872,883
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian J. Schwartz et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-009421
Application 11/872,883

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a method of repairing
airfoils on an integrally bladed rotor, wherein superabrasive machining
(SAM) quills are utilized to form the contour of the airfoil.” Spec.,
para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method of repairing an airfoil on an integrally bladed
rotor comprising the steps of:
(1) removing at least a damaged area on each of a
plurality of worn blades on an integrally bladed rotor;
(2) depositing additional material to surfaces of a
plurality of blades and beyond a desired final contour; and
(3) removing some of the additional material to form the
desired final contour for the airfoil, utilizing a superabrasive
machining quill.
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aleshin (US 6,172,327 B1; iss. Jan. 9, 2001) and
Schwartz (US 7,101,263 B2; iss. Sep. 5, 2006).
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Aleshin, Schwartz, and Hood (US 7,264,538 B2; iss. Sep. 4,
2007).
Appeal 2010-009421
Application 11/872,883

3
ISSUE
With regard to the first ground of rejection, Appellants argue claims 1,
2, 4, and 5 as a group. App. Br. 2-3. We select claim 1 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner determined that Aleshin discloses the method of
repairing an airfoil on an integrally bladed rotor as called for in claim 1
except that it does not disclose using a superabrasive machining quill for
removing some of the additional material. Ans. 3. The Examiner
determined that Schwartz teaches using a superabrasive machining quill to
machine airfoils, and concluded that it would have been obvious to use a
superabrasive machining quill to remove some of the additional material in
the method of Aleshin in light of the teachings of Schwartz “in order to
produce very fine surface finishes.” Ans. 3-4 (citing Schwartz, col. 1, ll. 46-
48 and col. 2, ll. 59-67).
Appellants argue that “Aleshin, et al. discloses a complete method of
repair, and nothing within Schwartz, et al. would suggest any modification.”
App. Br. 3. Appellants further assert that the Examiner’s reason for the
proposed modification, viz, to produce very fine surface finishes, is not
supported in the prior art. Id. Appellants also assert that “[t]he provision of
such fine machining in such a tight space is an unexpected result that is
nowhere shown in the prior art.” Id.
With regard to claim 3, the Examiner determined that Hood discloses
it was known in the art “to use a superabrasive grinding wheel to repair a gas
turbine engine part . . . wherein use of a superabrasive grinding wheel is
Appeal 2010-009421
Application 11/872,883

4
beneficial in that it allows for faster removal rates as compared to
conventional abrasives.” Ans. 4-5 (citing Hood, col. 2, ll. 60-64; col. 3,
ll. 42-67; col. 4, ll. 1-11; col. 6, ll. 28-67; and col. 7, ll. 1-32). The Examiner
determined that it would have been obvious to further modify the method of
Aleshin to use a superabrasive grinding wheel to return a height of the
blades to a desired height “in light of the teachings of Hood et al., in order to
finish the repair process of the part in an efficient manner.” Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner shows nothing within Hood, et
al. that would suggest utilizing the super-abrasive grinding wheel of Hood,
et al. in combination with the super-abrasive tool already added by the
Schwartz, et al. patent.” Reply Br. 2.
The issue presented by this appeal is:
Did the Examiner articulate adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to modify the method of Aleshin to use the superabrasive
machining quill of Schwartz to remove some of the additional material to
form the desired final contour for the airfoil, and to further modify the
method of Aleshin to use the superabrasive grinding wheel of Hood to
remove unwanted portions of the additional material to return the height of
the blades to a desired height?
ANALYSIS
Aleshin discloses a method for repairing blades that have been
manufactured integral with the disk forming a single integral structure
known as a blisk. Col. 1, ll. 12-15, 26-27. Aleshin discloses that after
Appeal 2010-009421
Application 11/872,883

5
depositing bead weld filling material on the blade substrate and performing
suitable post-weld heat treatment, “the blisk airfoils are machined to the
desired geometry.” Col. 2, ll. 37-46. In particular, Aleshin discloses milling
the airfoils to finished dimensions using a CNC cutting program and a 5-axis
milling machine. Col. 3, ll. 57-60. Aleshin discloses that “[m]anual
benching of the milled airfoils surfaces and edges is used to yield the desired
surface finish and edge geometry.” Col. 3, ll. 65-67.
Schwartz discloses that prior art techniques for machining airfoils,
such as flank milling, electro-chemical machining (ECM), and conventional
point milling, are slow, the tools do not have a particularly long life, and the
cutting forces produced during the milling operation result in high loads on
the workpiece which can result in airfoil deflection and chatter that results in
poor surface finish. Col. 1, ll. 8-17. Schwartz also discloses that it is
“difficult using these techniques to produce surface finishes that meet part
requirements without additional processing such as hand polishing or media
finishings.” Col. 1, ll. 17-20.
Schwartz teaches “a method for superabrasive machining an airfoil
shape in a substrate.” Col. 1, ll. 46-47. Schwartz teaches that “[t]he shapes
which are formed can follow an arbitrary airfoil shape for components such
as integrally bladed rotors or blisk.” Col. 2, ll. 56-58. Schwartz discloses:
The method of the present invention is advantageous
because it is capable of producing very fine surface finishes,
less than 10 µin, with machining times much less than
conventional flank milling, ECM or conventional point milling
techniques. The method of the present invention uses lower
loads and therefore has less chatter and deflection. The
Appeal 2010-009421
Application 11/872,883

6
superabrasive machining quill tool of the present invention lasts
longer than the tools used in conventional methods used to
produce integrally bladed rotors.
Col. 2, ll. 59-67.
As such, the disclosure in Schwartz explicitly relied on by the
Examiner in the rejection of claim 1 provides ample reasons to use the
superabrasive machining quill of Schwartz in place of the conventional
milling machinery used in Aleshin to remove the additional weld material to
produce the final contour of the airfoil. Schwartz clearly teaches that the
superabrasive machining quill is preferable for manufacturing integrally
bladed rotors or blisk, as compared to conventional milling tools. For
example, as noted by the Examiner, Schwartz suggests that the use of its
superabrasive machining quill would produce very fine surface finishes
without the need for the separate step of manual benching after milling, as
required in Aleshin. We fail to see why applying the technique of using a
superabrasive machining quill to form the contours of an airfoil, as disclosed
in Schwartz, to form the contours of an airfoil during the repair of the airfoil,
as disclosed in Aleshin, would produce unexpected results, as asserted by
Appellants. Instead, the use of the superabrasive machining quill of
Schwartz to form the contours of the repaired airfoil in Aleshin is nothing
more than a predictable use of the superabrasive machining quill according
to its established function. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007).
Hood discloses using a superabrasive grinding wheel to remove
thermal sprayed, wear resistant coating from gas turbine engine blades
Appeal 2010-009421
Application 11/872,883

7
during repair of blades that have been damaged during use. Col. 1, ll. 5-40.
See also Ans. 4. While Hood does not explicitly teach using a superabrasive
grinding wheel to remove additional material during repair of an airfoil to
return the airfoil to a desired height, we agree with the Examiner that the use
of the known superabrasive grinding wheel in the method of Aleshin would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellants’ invention. Hood discloses that the use of superabrasive grinding
wheels have several advantages over the use of traditional abrasive grinding
wheels, including: (1) the superabrasive grinding wheel stays sharper
longer; (2) the wheel life of the superabrasive grinding wheel is longer;
(3) the superabrasive grinding wheel exhibits a greater dimensional stability
in that it maintains its shape longer; and (4) it allows for faster removal rates.
Col. 3, l. 42 – col. 4, l. 11. While it may be possible to use the superabrasive
machining quill of Schwartz to both produce the contours on the repaired
airfoil and return the repaired airfoil to the desired height, Appellants’
decision to use an additional conventional superabrasive tool, whose use was
also known in the art for repair of damaged airfoils, to return the repaired
airfoil to its desired height, is not the product of innovation, but is merely the
product of ordinary skill and common sense. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
“Common sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes . . . .” Id. at 420. As such, the Examiner
provided adequate reasoning with rational underpinnings, viz, to finish the
repair process of the part in an efficient manner, to explain why one of
ordinary skill would have been led to use the superabrasive grinding wheel
Appeal 2010-009421
Application 11/872,883

8
of Hood in the modified method of Aleshin. Ans. 5. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as being unpatentable over
Aleshin and Schwartz and the rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable
over Aleshin, Schwartz, and Hood.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner articulated adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to modify the method of Aleshin to use the superabrasive
machining quill of Schwartz to remove some of the additional material to
form the desired final contour for the airfoil, and to further modify the
method of Aleshin to use the superabrasive grinding wheel of Hood to
remove unwanted portions of the additional material to return the height of
the blades to a desired height.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
mls