UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 2021

2021001391 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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. 15/022,039 03/15/2016 Mark F. Zelesky 74017US02; 67097-2620PUS1 1016 54549 7590 08/03/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER KANG, EDWIN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2021 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARK F. ZELESKY, BRYAN P. DUBE, and JESSE R. CHRISTOPHEL Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Raytheon Technologies Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 19, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An airfoil assembly comprising: an airfoil including an exterior wall defining an interior cavity, the exterior wall extending between a leading end and a trailing end and an open inboard end and an open outboard end, the exterior wall being formed of a material selected from the group consisting of refractory metal-based alloys, ceramic- based material and combinations thereof; a support frame extending in the interior cavity and protruding from the interior cavity through at least one of the open inboard end and the open outboard end; and at least one spacer located between the airfoil and the support frame, the at least one spacer arranged between the open outboard end of the airfoil and a flange of the support frame, wherein the at least one spacer is separate from the airfoil and the support frame, and wherein the at least one spacer is formed from a different material than the material of the exterior wall and a material of the support frame. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Olsen et al. (“Olsen”) US 5,630,700 May 20, 1997 Harding et al. (“Harding”) US 2006/0034679 A1 Feb. 16, 2006 Vance et al. (“Vance”) US 2006/0228211 A1 Oct. 12, 2006 Caruso et al. (“Caruso”) US 2009/0324397 A1 Dec. 31, 2009 Schiavo et al. (“Schiavo”) US 2010/0068034 A1 Mar. 18, 2010 Uechi et al. (“Uechi”) US 2013/0315725 A1 Nov. 28, 2013 Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 3 Rejections Claims 1–3, 7–9, 11, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi and Caruso. Claims 4, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi, Caruso, and Vance. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi, Caruso, and Schiavo. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi, Caruso, and Olsen. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi, Caruso, and Harding. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi, Harding, and Vance. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi, Harding, Vance, and Olsen. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi, Caruso, and Schiavo. ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent claims 2–5, 7–18, and 21 The Examiner finds that Uechi discloses substantially all of the subject matter of claim 1. Final Act. 2–5 (citing Uechi Figs. 1–3). Figures 1 through 3 of Uechi pertain to a first embodiment of a turbine vane. Uechi ¶¶ 26–28. Uechi’s Figure 5 shows the turbine vane of the first embodiment as a part of a turbine; specifically, turbine 13 with turbine blade 42 and turbine vane 41. Uechi ¶¶ 30, 43. As shown in Uechi’s Figure 5, turbine Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 4 blade 42 is a rotor blade and turbine vane 41 is a stator vane. Uechi’s Figure 2 depicts a cross-sectional view of turbine vane 41 having vane body 44. Uechi ¶¶ 27, 44–45. The Examiner finds that vane body 44 of Uechi’s turbine vane 41 corresponds to the claimed “airfoil.” Final Act. 4. Accordingly, the Examiner relies on vane body 44 of a stator vane to correspond to the claimed “airfoil.” The Examiner finds that Uechi, among other things, does not disclose the claimed material of the airfoil’s exterior wall. Final Act. 5. The Examiner remedies this deficiency by relying on Caruso’s teachings. Final Act. 5 (citing Caruso ¶ 24). In this regard, the Examiner identifies a portion of Caruso’s stator 128 as an airfoil by annotating Caruso’s Figure 2, which is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 5 Final Act. 4. Caruso’s Figure 2 is a partial cross section of a gas turbine engine (Caruso ¶ 10); and the Examiner’s annotations identify a first end wall platform, a second end wall platform, and an airfoil of Caruso’s stator, which is located between the first end wall platform and the second end wall platform (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that Caruso’s stator 128, which includes the identified airfoil’s exterior wall, is made of CrMoV; and that CrMoV is “a material selected from the group consisting of refractory metal- based alloys, ceramic-based material and combinations thereof,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 4, 5 (citing Caruso ¶ 24). Caruso describes “stator 128 comprises materials that are high strength and resistant to high temperatures and corrosion. In a particularly desirable embodiment, the stator 128 comprises CrMoV.” Caruso ¶ 24 (italics added). The Examiner determines, among other things, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify . . . the exterior wall [of Uechi’s airfoil (i.e., vane body 44 of Uechi’s turbine vane 41) to be] formed of a material selected from the group consisting of refractory metal-based alloys, ceramic-based material and combinations thereof . . . as taught by Caruso in order to . . . provide a stator that is high strength and resistant to high temperatures and corrosion. Final Act. 6. The Appellant contends that the Caruso’s stator is not an airfoil. See Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 1. More specifically, the Appellant asserts that “Caruso clearly indicate[s that] ‘blades’ (e.g. airfoils) are not considered to be the same structure as a stator.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Caruso ¶¶ 2–4). The Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error. Initially, we note that the Examiner does not find that the entirety of Caruso’s stator 128 is an airfoil. Rather, as can be seen in the Examiner’s Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 6 annotated version of Caruso’s Figure 2, the Examiner finds that the portion of Caruso’s stator 128 between the first end wall platform and the second end wall platform corresponds to an airfoil. Final Act. 4; Ans. 22 (“[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the stators of Caruso have airfoils as noted in the Annotated Figure 2 of Caruso in the Final [Office Action].”). As for the Appellant’s assertion that an example of Caruso’s blade is an airfoil, this assertion fails to persuasively explain why Caruso’s stator cannot also include an airfoil. Additionally, we note that the Examiner explains that a gas turbine engine includes stator vanes and rotor blades, each of which may have airfoils. See Ans. 21–22 (citing Dictionary.com, Oxford Dictionary, Collins Dictionary, Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary). We determine that the Examiner’s findings are adequately supported and the Appellant fails to persuasively explain error in these findings. The Appellant contends that “the entire point of the Caruso disclosure is to describe improvements for ‘stator,’ not ‘blade’ cooling.” Appeal Br. 5– 6; see also Reply Br. 1–2. Similarly, the Appellant contends that “[t]he rejection fails to provide any support for the assertion that the materials taught by Caruso could even be used for an airfoil such as the one taught by Uechi.” Appeal Br. 6. The Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. The Appellant’s contentions incorrectly suggest that the Examiner’s rejection seeks to modify a material of Uechi’s turbine (rotor) blade 42 in view Caruso’s teaching of a material for a stator vane. As discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection modifies the exterior wall of vane body 44 of Uechi’s turbine (stator) vane 41 in view of Caruso’s teaching of a material of Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 7 stator 128; specifically, the material between the first end wall platform and the second end wall platform. See Final Act. 4, 5–6. Further, we determine that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is adequately supported. See Final Act. 2–6; Ans. 21–22; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds . . . [require] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). And, we determine that the Appellant fails to persuasively explain error in the Examiner’s rejection. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 7–9, 11, 15, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi and Caruso. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Additionally, the Appellant does not separately argue the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 5, 10, 12–14, and 17, each of which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Therefore, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims as well. The Examiner rejects independent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uechi, Caruso, and Schiavo. Final Act. 18–20. The Appellant relies on the arguments presented for the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 6 (“Thus, the rejections of claims 1 and 20 and their dependent claims do not amount to a prima facie case of obviousness, and should be reversed.”). With regard to the issues presented in this appeal, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 is similar to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 8 independent claim 20 and dependent claim 21 as unpatentable over Uechi, Caruso, and Schiavo. Independent claim 19 and dependent claim 22 Independent claim 19 recites, “a second flange of the support frame.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner relies solely on Vance to teach the claimed second flange; specifically, the Examiner finds that Vance’s nut 48 corresponds to the claimed “flange.” See Final Act. 16–17 (citing Vance Fig. 6). It is the Examiner’s position that Vance’s nut 48 corresponds with the claimed “flange” because nut 48 provides the exact same function as the flange as the instant application. Ans. 23. The Examiner explains, “[i]n the instan[t] application, the spring 290 presses against the top surface of the flange 184. In the same exact way, the inboard spring 50 of Vance presses against the top surface of the inboard nut 48 of Vance.” Ans. 23. The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 is improper because the rejection relies on an errant finding that Vance’s nut 48 corresponds to the claimed “flange.” See Appeal Br. 6–7. It is the Appellant’s position that “[a] nut is not a flange.” Appeal Br. 6–7. The Appellant’s argument is persuasive of Examiner error. The terms “nut” and “flange” each connote a particular structure, and those structures are distinct from one another. The Examiner fails to explain –– using evidence and/or technical reasoning –– how one of ordinary skill in the art would view the structure of Vance’s nut 48 as corresponding with the structure of the claimed “flange.” Additionally, we find that the structure of Vance’s nut 48 is unlike that of the structure of a flange, i.e., a structure that Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 9 includes a part or edge that sticks out of an object. See, e.g., Spec. Figs. 4–5 (showing flange 184 of support frames 174/274 sticking out of the remainder of support frames 174/274). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 19 as unpatentable over Uechi, Harding, and Vance. As for the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 22 as unpatentable over Uechi, Harding, Vance, and Olsen, the Examiner fails to rely on Olsen in any manner that would remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 19 as discussed above. Therefore, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 22. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 7–9, 11, 15, 16, 18 103 Uechi, Caruso 1–3, 7–9, 11, 15, 16, 18 4, 5, 14 103 Uechi, Caruso, Vance 4, 5, 14 10 103 Uechi, Caruso, Schiavo 10 12, 13 103 Uechi, Caruso, Olsen 12, 13 17 103 Uechi, Caruso, Harding 17 19 103 Uechi, Harding, Vance 19 22 103 Uechi, Harding, Vance, Olsen 22 20, 21 103 Uechi, Caruso, Schiavo 20, 21 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–18, 20, 21 19, 22 Appeal 2021-001391 Application 15/022,039 10 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART