UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 31, 2020

15039227 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2020)

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. 15/039,227 05/25/2016 Charles H. Roche 74573US02 (U420836US2) 5080 135291 7590 07/31/2020 Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney 20 Church Street 22 Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER DAVIS, JASON GREGORY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/31/2020 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@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES H. ROCHE Appeal 2020-000632 Application 15/039,227 Technology Center 3700 Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, and 8–12.1 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corp. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000632 Application 15/039,227 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a fan blade. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A fan blade comprising: a body having a pressure side and a suction side, the pressure and suction sides being disposed between and connected to a leading edge and a trailing edge, the pressure side and suction side also being disposed between and connected to a base and a tip; the suction side defining an opening communicating with one or more cavities, the opening having a perimeter; the body further defining a slot extending from all or part of the perimeter away from the opening and into the body; the body further including a lip extending inwardly toward the opening and terminating at the perimeter of the opening; a cover comprising fiber or resin and having a peripheral edge that may be received into the slot to help secure the cover to the body, thereby covering part or all of the one or more cavities, the cover having an inner surface configured to face the opening; and a structural filler material disposed within at least one of the one or more cavities, wherein the structural filler material forms a permanent part of the fan blade and wherein the lip extends inwardly toward the opening and terminating at the perimeter of the opening, wherein the body includes an inner wall that, with the lip, defines the slot, the inner wall having an upper surface upon which the cover is located when the cover is located in the opening and a peripheral edge of the cover is received in the slot. Appeal 2020-000632 Application 15/039,227 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Foose US 7,980,817 B2 July 19, 2011 Deal US 2011/0211965 A1 Sept. 1, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3–6, 8–10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Deal and Foose.2 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Deal, Foose, and applicant admitted prior art. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). “The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.” 37 C.F.R § 41.37(c)(iv). Appellant offers no explanation as to why the Examiner erred in rejecting the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 4–8. Rather, Appellant simply reproduces a portion of claim 1 and its Figure 10, and alleges without explanation that “[n]o such configuration is found in Deal nor would such a configuration be obvious in view of Foose” and “the obviousness rejections 2 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and the double patenting rejections are withdrawn. Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-000632 Application 15/039,227 4 are based upon improper hindsight reconstruction.” Id. at 5; see also id. at 6–7 (providing same response with respect to claim 6). Appellant’s naked assertions, without more, are insufficient to identify reversible error. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We do not consider any new argument in Appellant’s Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). As the Examiner explained in the Answer, “[t]he Appellant has not identified any specific deficiencies in the previous rejection, but rather generally alleged the prior art does not teach this limitation.” Ans. 4. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–6, 8– 10, 12 103 Deal, Foose 1, 3–6, 8– 10, 12 11 103 Deal, Foose, applicant admitted prior art 11 Overall Outcome 1, 3–6, 8–12 Appeal 2020-000632 Application 15/039,227 5 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