Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2017

13449460 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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.
13/449,460 04/18/2012 Blair A. Smith 60649US01 4690
87521 7590 11/29/2017
Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
WOLCOTT, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BLAIR A. SMITH, MICHAEL E. FOLSOM, and
DAVID P. NAGLE
Appeal 2016-004047
Application 13/449,460
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-004047
Application 13/449,460
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a propeller blade with metallic foam core.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A propeller blade comprising:
a metallic foam core; and
a structural layer that surrounds at least a portion of the
metallic foam core.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 7, 8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Graff (US 5,222,297, issued June 29, 1993) and
Read (US 2010/0143097 Al, published June 10, 2010).
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 5 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Graff, Read, and More (US 4,470,862, issued September
11, 1984).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Graff, Read, and Schroer (US 2002/0153199 Al,
published October 24, 2002).
OPINION
All claims and all rejections are argued as a group based on the Graff-
Read combination. App. Br. 2—3. Appellants contend that Read’s teachings
are not properly combined with those of Graff because (1) Read’s airfoils do
not produce propulsion (App. Br. 2) and (2) Read’s airfoils are designed for
ground systems as opposed to air-based systems (App. Br. 3). The Examiner
correctly points out that both of Appellants’ assertions in this regard are
based upon erroneous interpretations of Read. Ans. 7 (citing Read para. 2
(“A reduction in the weight of gas turbine engines is particularly
2
Appeal 2016-004047
Application 13/449,460
advantageous when they are intended for use in aircraft installations.”) and
Ans. 9 (citing Read para. 32 (“fan 12 [] produces ... a second air flow
which provides propulsive thrust.”)). We sustain the Examiner’s rejections
and adopt the Examiner’s analysis of the issues raised in this appeal (Ans. 7—
9) as our own.1
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—17 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
1 See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1994) accord In
re Cree, No. 2015-1365 n. 2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2016)
3