Ex Parte Albert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2013

11606598 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/606,598 11/30/2006 Jason Edward Albert PA-0002201-US (06-285) 7949
52237 7590 06/11/2013
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
LIN, KUANG Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON EDWARD ALBERT,
FRANCISCO J. CUNHA and JEFFREY S. BEATTIE
____________

Appeal 2012-003467
Application 11/606,598
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-003467
Application 11/606,598

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1
finally rejecting claims 8-11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
Cunha (US 6,932,571 B2, issued Aug. 23, 2005) in view of Verner
(US 2005/0274478 A1, published Dec. 15, 2005).2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to a “tip cooling design that utilizes refractory metal
core (RMC) technology in order to create a tip cooling scheme for a turbine engine
component that is capable of more efficient use of cooling air and a more
reliable casting process.” (Spec.3 [0005].)
[T]he tip region of a turbine blade is typically the thinnest portion of
the airfoil, which makes it more difficult to package the desired
cooling features. Furthermore, the tip region of a turbine blade is
typically difficult to accurately produce with investment casting
processes because the internal ceramic core is thin and weak near the
tip.
(Id. at [0002].) According to Appellants, they have discovered the cooling circuit
for the tip region of a turbine blade can be more accurately produced by stabilizing
the tip region of the ceramic core with a refractory metal core element connected to
and positioned laterally of the tip region. (Reply Br.4 2, 1st para.) A refractory
metal core element 10 connected to a tip region 12 of a ceramic core 14 in
accordance with Appellants’ invention is illustrated in Application FIG. 2 below.
(See Spec. [0017].)

1 Final Office Action mailed Feb. 7, 2011.
2 Appeal Brief filed Aug. 4, 2011 (“App. Br.”)
3 Specification filed Nov. 30, 2006.
4 Reply Brief filed Dec. 12, 2011.
Appeal
Applica

In
element
downwa
portion
52, the l
refracto
suitable
connect
10 can b
ceramic
A
combin
2012-0034
tion 11/60
the embo
10 has a s
rdly from
50 and an
egs of wh
ry metal c
means kn
ion.” (Id.)
e used to
core, rela
ppellants’
ation of a c
67
6,598
Applicatio
a tip re
diment sh
olid portio
the solid p
angled por
ich may be
ore elemen
own in the
By virtue
control the
tive to the
independe
eramic co
n FIG. 2 a
gion of a
own in Ap
n 46 and a
ortion 46
tion 54 be
joined to
t 10 may b
art such a
of their a
location o
external m
nt claims
re and a re
3
bove is an
casting. (I
plication F
plurality
. (Id. at [0
tween the
gether by a
e attached
s an adhes
ttachment
f both the
old. (Id.)
8 and 11 a
fractory m
external v
d. at [0012
IG. 2, the
of spaced
018].) Ea
first portio
lower po
to the cer
ive or a m
, the refrac
refractory

re directed
etal core
iew of
].)
refractory
apart legs
ch leg 48 h
n 50 and
rtion 53. (
amic core
echanical
tory meta
metal cor
, respectiv
element, a
metal cor
48 depend
as a first l
a base por
Id.) “The
14 using
fit
l core elem
e and the
ely, to the
nd to a
e
ing
eg
tion

any
ent

Appeal 2012-003467
Application 11/606,598

4
refractory metal core element. For reference claims 8 and 11 are reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
8. In combination, a ceramic core for forming a passageway in a cast airfoil
portion and means for stabilizing a tip region of said ceramic core connected to
said tip region of said ceramic core, said stabilizing means comprising a refractory
metal core element positioned laterally of the ceramic core and which extends
above the tip region of said ceramic core.
11. A refractory metal core element comprising a solid portion and a plurality of
spaced apart legs depending from said solid portion, each of said legs having a first
potion adjacent said solid portion, a base portion, and an angled portion
intermediate said first portion and said base portion so that said base portion is
laterally offset from said solid portion, wherein said angled portion of each said leg
is connected to both said first portion and said base portion and is angled at a non-
right angle with respect to both said base portion and said first portion and wherein
said legs are unjoined at one end of said refractory meal core element.

Cunha discloses a blade tip cooling design for a turbine blade 24 which
employs an embedded microcircuit 40 transversely disposed in the tip 36 to
provide convective and film cooling of the tip 36 as illustrated in FIG. 3A (col. 3, l.
64-col. 4, l. 1; col. 4, ll. 63-65), reproduced below:
Appeal
Applica

Cunh
C
38 locat
channel
“located
2012-0034
tion 11/60
a FIG. 3A
inventiv
unha discl
ed therein
s. (Id. at c
outboard
67
6,598
above is a
e microcir
oses the c
which ma
ol. 4, ll. 1
of the cav
perspectiv
cuit coolin
ast blade 2
y be of an
1-14.) “In
ities 38,” “
5
e view of
g scheme
4 includes
y conventi
a preferre
are forme
an airfoil
. (Id. at co
a hollow
onal form
d embodim
d of refrac
incorporat
l. 3, ll. 17
airfoil 54 w
, multi-pas
ent,” mic
tory metal
ing Cunha
-18.)
ith caviti
s serpentin
rocircuits
[] forms a
’s
es
e
40,
nd
Appeal 2012-003467
Application 11/606,598

6
encapsulated in the part mold prior to casting.” (Id. at ll. 40-43.) “[T]he outlets 72
are angled upward towards the tip 36 and most preferably, the outlets 72 are angled
upward towards the tip 36 in a range from approximately about 0 to 45 degrees, as
measured from a direction normal to the tip surface.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 36-39.) In
an alternative embodiment, shown in FIG. 4, the outlets 72 are positioned on a
shelf 92 on the top surface 67 of the tip 36. (Id. at col. 8, ll. 19-23.)
The Examiner finds Cunha “substantially show[s] the invention as claimed
except that . . . [Cunha does] not show the use of [a] ceramic core for forming the
cooling passage 38 and do[es] not show the detailed structure of [the] refractory
metal core for forming the microcircuits 40.” (Ans.5 4-5.)
The Examiner relies on Verner as evidence that at the time of Appellants’
invention, it was known in the art of turbine blade manufacture to use a
combination of ceramic cores to provide large internal features such as trunk
passageways and refractory metal cores to provide finer features such as outlet
passageways. (Id. at 5 (citing Verner [0005]).) According to Verner, a problem
with these prior art combinations was that their spatial relationship and alignment
was difficult to maintain during manufacture of turbine parts, resulting in
unsatisfactory part internal features. (See id.) To overcome this problem, Verner
discloses a casting method in which “the first core . . . may be assembled to the
second core.” (Id. [0007].) Verner discloses and illustrates in FIG. 5, for example,
securing a refractory metal core (RMC) 20 to a ceramic core 110 by “wax
weld[ing] or otherwise,” or by securing distal portions 50 of RMC 20 in slots in the
ceramic core 110 via ceramic adhesive. (Id. at [0028-0029].) An embodiment of
a refractory metal core is shown in Verner FIG. 1 (id. at [0023]), which is
reproduced below:

5 Examiner’s Answer mailed Oct. 12, 2011.
Appeal
Applica

A
separate
ultimate
a cast ai
38 and 4
Additio
for furth
passage
T
recited i
(strips 4
ordinary
unjoine
11.) Th
2012-0034
tion 11/60
s shown in
a series o
cast part,
rfoil. (Id.
0 connect
nally, the s
er structu
ways. (Id.)
he Examin
n appealed
6) are unj
skill in th
d dependin
e Examine
67
6,598
Verner
Verner F
f fine featu
i.e., a seri
at [0023].
the strips
trips 46 m
ral integrit

er finds V
claim 11
oined at on
e art woul
g on the d
r determin
FIG. 1 abo
IG. 1, RM
res 46 tha
es of narro
) Intact di
(features)
ay be con
y or to enh
erner disc
with the e
e end. (A
d have un
esired con
es it woul
7
ve is a vie
C 20 inclu
t will form
w parallel
stal portio
46 to main
nected at o
ance fluid
loses a ref
xception o
ns. 6.) Ho
derstood s
figuration
d have bee
w of RMC
des a seri
internal p
passagew
ns 50 and
tain their
ne or mor
flow thro
ractory me
f explicitl
wever, the
trips 46 co
of the coo
n obvious
20
es of voids
assagewa
ays throug
52 of the e
relative al
e interven
ugh the ul
tal core el
y teaching
Examine
uld be join
ling passa
at the tim
44 which
ys in the
h the wall
nd section
ignment.
ing locatio
timate
ement as
the legs
r finds one
ed or
ges. (Id. a
e of

of
s
(Id.)
ns
of
t
Appeal 2012-003467
Application 11/606,598

8
Appellants’ invention to secure Verner’s refractory metal core 20 to a ceramic
core, as taught by Verner, in such a manner that the combined cores could be used
to form microcircuits 40 and the large cooling passage 38, respectively, in Cunha’s
turbine blade. (Ans. 5.) The Examiner finds that, when combined to form Cunha’s
blade, the refractory metal core 20 would be positioned above the tip region of the
ceramic core, since Cunha’s outlets 72 must extend above the tip region of the
ceramic core and be positioned laterally of the ceramic core in order to be angled
upward toward the tip 36 of the blade. (Id. at 5-6; see citations to Cunha
(describing outlets 72) supra p. 6.)
We have fully considered the arguments advanced by Appellants in support
of patentability of each of the appealed claims, but are not persuaded of reversible
error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for the reasons expressed in the
Answer (see Ans. 7-11) and below.
Appellants argue “there is no way one could use the refractory core element
of Verner [] to form the [micro]circuit” 40 in Cunha. (App. Br. 8; see also Reply
Br. 3-4 (“[O]ne could not use a refractory metal core with parallel legs such as that
shown in Verner to form the cooling circuit in Cunha [] because the legs of the
cooling circuit converge in places and have a common intermediate plenum.”).)
“If a person of ordinary skill, before the time of invention and without
knowledge of that invention, would have found the invention merely an easily
predictable and achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the
invention likely would have been obvious.” Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Techs.
Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Cf. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness
based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements.”) (citations omitted) .
Appeal 2012-003467
Application 11/606,598

9
While Verner does not disclose the identical positioning of the refractory
metal core 20 with respect to the ceramic core necessary to produce Cunha’s
microcircuit 40 and cavity 38, the Examiner had a reasonable basis for finding one
of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the requisite skills and knowledge
necessary to arrange and secure the refractory metal core 20 to a conventional
ceramic core in a manner which would have resulted in the structure needed to
form Cunha’s blade 24. (See e.g. Verner [0033] (“[D]etails of the particular
components being manufactured will influence or dictate details of any particular
implementation. Thus, other core combinations may be used, including small
and/or finely-featured ceramic or other cores in place of the RMCs.”); id. at [0029]
(indicating RMCs may be secured to the ceramic core in a manner other than that
depicted in FIG. 5).) Likewise, the Examiner had a reasonable basis for finding
one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Verner’s refractory core
element 20 could be modified as necessary to form Cunha’s microcircuits 40,
modification of which was also contemplated by Cunha. (See Verner [0023] (“The
exemplary RMC 20 is intended to be illustrative of one possible general
configuration. Other configurations, including simpler and more complex
configurations are possible.”); Cunha col. 8, ll. 30-35 (noting the arrangement of
micropassages, spacing therebetween, outlet and inlet size and orientation, etc. can
be varied to optimize the tip cooling for a given airfoil design).) Appellants have
not convincingly explained why the Examiner’s findings are erroneous or
unreasonable. See Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“hold[ing] that while an analysis of obviousness always
depends on evidence that supports the required Graham factual findings, it also
may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the
Appeal 2012-003467
Application 11/606,598

10
person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference
or expert opinion.”)
Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used a
refractory metal core attached to a ceramic core to form Cunha’s cooling circuit
because neither Cunha nor Verner appreciates the need to stabilize the tip region of
the ceramic core. (Reply Br. 2.) Appellants, while conceding Verner discloses a
refractory core element joined to a ceramic core (App. Br. 6), argue one of
ordinary skill in the art would more likely have formed Cunha’s entire cooling
circuit using a ceramic core (id. at 5) or using a machining technique (id. at 6),
which are the methods used by Cunha.
“One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious
is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which
there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-20 (2007). “[M]otivation to modify a prior art
reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that
the patentee had.” Alcon Research, Ltd. v Apotex Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406, 420 (2007)
(stating that it is error to look “only to the problem the patentee was trying to
solve”)). A reference’s teachings and its obvious variants are relevant prior art,
even if the reference addresses a problem which differs from that addressed by a
patent applicant. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
Verner discloses that at the time of the invention, there was a known
problem in forming finer cooling features in turbine parts and that such problem
could be resolved by using a combination of a refractory metal core to form the
finer features and a ceramic core to form larger internal features. (See Verner
Appeal 2012-003467
Application 11/606,598

11
[0005], [0007] supra p. 6.) Appellants have not explained why, given the
advantages noted by Verner, the ordinary artisan would not have been motivated to
use a joined refractory metal core and ceramic core to form Cunha’s turbine blade
cooling circuit. (Cf. App. Br. 4 (conceding Cunha contemplates the use of ceramic
cores and refractory metal cores to form the microcircuits).) Appellants have not
shown that such use of a combined refractory core element joined to a ceramic
core would have been beyond the level of skill of the ordinary artisan at the time of
the invention. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”)
Appellants argue the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest “joining the
refractory metal core element to the tip region of the ceramic core and/or extending
the refractory metal core element above the tip region of the ceramic core.” (App.
Br. 6.)
The Examiner has provided a clear and reasonable explanation in support of
a finding that the proposed prior art combination would have resulted in
Appellants’ claimed structure. (See Ans. 5-6 supra p.8; Ans. 9 “[I]n Cunha [] the
combination of [a] ceramic core and the refractory metal core, as suggest by
Verner [], are used for forming the large cooling passages 38 and the finer cooling
microcircuit 40. Thus, the refractory metal core is located above the ceramic core.
The scope of the claim does not require that the refractory core to be located
above the tip 36 of the blade. Rather, the scope of the claim requires only that the
refractory metal core extends above the tip region of the ceramic core.”).)
Appellants have not explained, with any degree of specificity, why the Examiner’s
finding is erroneous or unreasonable. (See e.g. Reply Br. 4 (“[T]he scope of the
Appeal 2012-003467
Application 11/606,598

12
claim calls for more than the refractory metal core extending above the tip region.
The claim calls for the refractory metal core to be connected to the tip region of the
ceramic core. There is nothing in the references which teaches that.”.))
As indicated above, any remaining arguments advanced by Appellants in
support of patentability have been fully addressed by the Examiner and are
unpersuasive for the reasons expressed in the Answer.
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).
AFFIRMED

cam