SNECMA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2021000989 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2022)

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. 14/403,003 11/21/2014 Hanna Reiss 444387US41PCT 1099 22850 7590 01/04/2022 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER LAMBERT, WAYNE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 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): OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM iahmadi@oblon.com patentdocket@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HANNA REISS, ADRIEN BISCAY, BENOIT FAYARD, LAURENT JABLONSKI, and DAMIEN MERLOT Appeal 2021-000989 Application 14/403,003 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-15, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAFRAN AIRCRAFT ENGINES. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000989 Application 14/403,003 2 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 8. A fan blade for an airplane turbojet, the fan blade comprising: an airfoil extending axially between a leading edge and a trailing edge and including a plurality of airfoil sections stacked radially between a root section and a tip section, wherein all of the airfoil sections situated between the root section and an airfoil section situated at a radial height corresponding to 30% of a total radial height of the airfoil possess a skeleton curve having a point of inflection, the skeleton curve being constituted by variations in a skeleton angle as a function of position along a chord of the airfoil, the skeleton angle being an angle formed between a tangent at each point of a blade skeleton with a longitudinal axis of the turbojet, the blade skeleton being a geometrical line of points situated at equal distance from a pressure side face and a suction side face of the airfoil, and the point of inflection being a point where a tangent to the skeleton curve crosses the skeleton curve, wherein the skeleton angles of the skeleton curve of the root section decrease from 10% to 90% of a chord length of the blade as measured from the leading edge going towards the trailing edge, and wherein an entirety of a suction side face of the airfoil is convex and an entirety of a pressure side face of the airfoil is concave. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Wadia et al. (“Wadia”) US 2007/0243068 A1 Oct. 18, 2007 Guemmer US 7,419,353 B2 Sept. 2, 2008 Harvey et al. (“Harvey”) US 2011/0206527 A1 Aug. 25, 2011 Snell GB 2 106 192 A Apr. 7, 1983 Appeal 2021-000989 Application 14/403,003 3 REJECTIONS2 I. Claims 8-11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guemmer and Snell. II. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guemmer, Snell, and Wadia. III. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guemmer, Snell, and Harvey. FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. ANALYSIS Claim 8, the sole independent claim in this Appeal, defines several limitations of the claimed turbojet fan blade. The recited “blade skeleton” is “a geometrical line of points situated at equal distance from a pressure side face and a suction side face of the airfoil.” The recited “skeleton angle” is “an angle formed between a tangent at each point of a blade skeleton with a longitudinal axis of the turbojet.” The recited “skeleton curve” is “constituted by variations in a skeleton angle as a function of position along a chord of the airfoil.” In addition, the recited “point of inflection” is “a point where a tangent to the skeleton curve crosses the skeleton curve.” The Examiner maps all of the foregoing defined features to the Guemmer reference. See Final Act. 5 (citing Guemmer col. 1, ll. 8-26, col. 4, ll. 12-13, Figs. 6a, 6b). 2 The rejection of claim 18, based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Final Act. 3) is withdrawn. See Answer 3. Appeal 2021-000989 Application 14/403,003 4 However, as the Appellant argues (see Appeal Br. 6-7), the Examiner does not adequately show that Guemmer teaches the recited “skeleton angle” and its associated “skeleton curve” having a “point of inflection.” Indeed, the Examiner maintains that the claimed “point of inflection” (in terms of the “skeleton angle” and “skeleton curve”) is shown in the graph provided in Guemmer’s Figure 6b. See Answer 3-5. However, the vertical axis of Guemmer’s Figure 6b graph is not the claimed “skeleton angle,” but, rather, is what Guemmer calls the “specific angle of inclination α*” - defined as (α1 - αp)/(α1 - α2), where α1 is the “inclination angle at the leading . . . edge,” α2 is the “inclination angle” at the “trailing edge,” and αp is the “angle of inclination” at a particular point on a “skeleton line.” Guemmer col. 4, ll. 12-25, Figs. 6a, 6b. Moreover, the horizontal axis (of the graph shown in Guemmer’s Figure 6b) is not the “position along a chord of the airfoil” set forth in claim 8 of this Appeal, but, rather, what Guemmer calls the “specific extension S*” - defined as the ratio of sp (the “extension” at a particular point on the “skeleton line”) and “the skeleton-line total extension S.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 12-28, Figs. 6a, 6b. Notably, Guemmer indicates that a blade’s “skeleton-line total extension S” is distinct from its “chord.” See id. at col. 3, ll. 33-55, Figs. 4, 6a. In view of the foregoing, the Appellant persuades us that the rejection does not adequately demonstrate that Guemmer teaches the limitations addressed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 8, as well as dependent claims 9-15, 17, and 18, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2021-000989 Application 14/403,003 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8-15, 17, and 18 are reversed. More specifically: We reverse the rejection of claims 8-11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guemmer and Snell. We reverse the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guemmer, Snell, and Wadia. We reverse the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guemmer, Snell, and Harvey. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8-11, 13, 14, 17, 18 103(a) Guemmer, Snell 8-11, 13, 14, 17, 18 12 103(a) Guemmer, Snell, Wadia 12 15 103(a) Guemmer, Snell, Harvey 15 Overall Outcome 8-15, 17, 18 REVERSED