IHC Holland IE B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 27, 2021

2021000564 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2021)

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. 15/506,260 02/24/2017 Edwin Albert Munts P6052910PCT/US 4784 132452 7590 08/27/2021 N.V. Nederlandsch Octrooibureau New Babylon City Offices Anna van Buerenplein 21a The Hague, 2595 DA NETHERLANDS EXAMINER HAMAOUI, DAVID E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2021 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): USPTO@nlo.eu shultz@nlo.eu uspractice@nlo.eu PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte EDWIN ALBERT MUNTS ____________ Appeal 2021-000564 Application 15/506,260 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies IHC Holland IE B.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000564 Application 15/506,260 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to an “Impeller Blade with Asymmetric Thickness.” Spec., Title. Claims 1 and 13, reproduced below as the independent claims on appeal, are also illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis. 1. A blade for an impeller, the blade comprising: a front portion with a leading edge and a trailing portion with a trailing edge joined by spaced apart pressure and suction sides to form an exterior blade surface; wherein the pressure side is formed from an outer envelope of a first blade profile aligned in a first position such that an incoming flow remains attached to the blade surface at a first flowrate condition of the impeller; and wherein at least a part of the front portion of the suction side is formed by rotating the first blade profile around the leading edge to match an angle of the incoming flow at a second flowrate condition of the impeller; and wherein the second flowrate is lower than the first flowrate. 13. A method of forming a blade for an impeller, the method comprising: forming a pressure side of the blade from a first blade profile aligned for a set first flow condition such that an incoming flow remains attached to the blade surface; forming a front portion of a suction side of the blade from the first blade profile rotated around a leading edge to align with incoming flow at a second flowrate condition of the impeller, wherein the second flowrate is lower than the first flowrate; forming a trailing portion of the suction side of the blade from the first blade profile aligned for the set first flow condition; and forming a transition portion between the front portion and the trailing portion of the suction side. Appeal 2021-000564 Application 15/506,260 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Name Reference(s) Date Koivikko US 10,094,222 B2 Oct. 9, 2018 The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as being indefinite. II. Claims 1–11 and 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koivikko. III. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Koivikko. OPINION Rejection I Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, “wherein at least a part of the front portion of the suction side is formed by rotating the first blade profile around the leading edge to match an angle of the incoming flow at a second flowrate condition,” and independent claim 13 similarly requires, in relevant part, “forming a front portion of a suction side of the blade from the first blade profile rotated around a leading edge to align with incoming flow at a second flowrate condition.” The Examiner finds, inter alia, with respect to Figure 2a of the Specification, that “a profile resulting from the shape 36 [(i.e., blade profile 36)] rotated around the point 24 in the manner depicted by [Figure 2b] would have a cusp at the pivot point.” Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that Appeal 2021-000564 Application 15/506,260 4 [Appellant] agrees that if the entire blade profile were rotated around some particular single pivot points [sic], a cusp would appear. However, [Appellant] points out that claims [sic] require only forming at least a part of the front portion2 of the suction side with the rotated profile, and do not require rotation around a single point, much less one point resulting in a cusp. Thus, forming at least part of the front portion of the suction side is a separate step, wherein the blade profile is rotated and used to form only a part of the front portion of the suction side. The claims do not require the blade to be split at a certain point or rotated at a specific cusp point . . . . As such, in this step only at least part of the blade profile that forms the front portion of the suction side is required, and a cusp does not result. In the application, Fig. 2B (reproduced below) illustrates how the front portion is formed without a cusp. Furthermore, reference 24 refers to the leading edge 24 and not, in particular, to a singular small point on the tip of the leading edge 24. The leading edge is a curve comprising multiple 2 We cannot find this limitation in independent claim 13, to the extent a part of a front portion of a leading edge of a blade is definitive. Appeal 2021-000564 Application 15/506,260 5 points. Accordingly, rotating around the leading edge should not be interpreted as rotating around a single point exactly on the tip of the leading edge, but rather as rotating around said leading edge as clearly depicted in Fig. 2B. Following this, when read in light of the specification including the drawings, the claim limitations do not require a rotation that results in a cusp. Appeal Br. 7–8. The Specification discloses that [f]ront portion 22 of blade 20 outer envelope is formed by blade profile 36 and 37, shown in Fig. 2b. Blade profile 36 is the design (at a first alignment position) of a blade profile to align flow and ensure that flow remains attached to the blade surface during a set operating condition. . . . Profile 37 is the same shape as profile 36, and is rotated at an angle of rotation AR of about 20 degrees around leading edge 24. . . . Blade 20 front portion 22 is then formed on pressure side 32 by blade envelope 36 and on suction side 34 by blade envelope 37. Spec. 4:20–30. We find that Figure 2b of the Specification, reproduced supra, depicts blade profile 36 rotated about a point at the apex of leading edge 24, which Appellant agrees would result in a cusp. Although the claims do not expressly exclude such a cusp, we find that Appellant’s explanation that the claim limitation, “rotating the first blade profile around the leading edge,” does not mean that the first blade profile is rotated about one point (i.e., a cusp point) of the multiple points on leading edge 24, renders the claims indefinite. In other words, we cannot find another meaning of “rotating the first blade profile around the leading edge,” in view of the Specification, other than that the first blade profile is rotated around at least one point on the leading edge, for example, as depicted in Figure 2b of the Specification, which results in a cusp. Cf. Final Act. 4 (“the recited limitations do not appear to actually be a proper characterization of the present invention”); Appeal 2021-000564 Application 15/506,260 6 Ans. 13 (“If there is no cusp, as Appellant alleges, then there is no figure at all even attempting to articulate the portion of the suction side that is formed by rotating the profile.”); see also Spec., Fig. 2a (wherein no cusp is depicted on the leading edge of the blade). Given Appellant’s arguments that other related claim limitations involving “the front portion of the suction side,” and “at least a part of the front portion” somehow inform how the first blade profile may be rotated, and that the rotation “should not be interpreted as rotating around a single point exactly on the tip of the leading edge,” and absent any explanation in the Specification as to any other particular manner in which the rotation may be effected, the metes and bounds of the limitation at issue, when considered in light of the Specification, are far from being clearly discernable. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as being indefinite. Rejections II and III As we decline to speculate as to the meaning of the claim limitation, “rotating the first blade profile around the leading edge,” we do not reach a decision on the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 103. In other words, a determination as to the propriety of these rejections is necessarily based on a speculative assumption as to the meaning of the claim. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). Appeal 2021-000564 Application 15/506,260 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–15 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–15 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–15 1–11, 13– 15 102(a)(2) Koivikko3 12 103 Koivikko Overall Outcome 1–15 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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 3 As we decline to speculate as to the meaning of the claim limitation, “rotating the first blade profile around the leading edge,” we do not reach a decision on the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 103.