Ex Parte BAUER et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 13, 2019

14705315 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/705,315 05/06/2015
135838 7590 06/17/2019
Studio Torta (RINGFENCE)
c/o BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
P.O. BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313
Rainer BAUER
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0087748-000286 1039
EXAMINER
EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2019 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAINER BAUER, SHAILENDRA NAIK, and
MARCHENZE 1
Appeal2018-006390
Application 14/705,315
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Alstom Technology Ltd. (Appellant) is listed as the Applicant as provided
in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 (see Application Data Sheet dated l\,fay 6, 2015), but the
Appeal Brief identifies Ansaldo Energia Switzerland AG as the assignee of
the present application and the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2018-006390
Application 14/705,315
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim and is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. An airfoil for a gas turbine, the airfoil comprising:
at least one inner cooling channel arranged along a
longitudinal axis, the at least one cooling channel having a bent
portion where the longitudinal axis is curved and deviates from
a vertical axis of a design axis of the gas turbine, and
a plurality of longitudinally spaced turbulators distributed
on at least a wall of said inner cooling channel and inclined
such that each turbulator forms a tilt angle with the longitudinal
axis,
wherein the inclination of each turbulator is adapted such
that the tilt angle is substantially constant along the curved
longitudinal axis.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
II. Claims 1-3 and 6-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as
anticipated by Hyde et al. (US 2001/0018024 Al, published Aug.
30, 2001, hereinafter "Hyde").
III. Claims 4, 5, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hyde.
DISCUSSION
Re} ection I-Indefiniteness
The Examiner determined that "[t]he term 'substantially' in claim 1 is
a relative term which renders" claim 1, as well as claims 2-14, which
depend from claim 1, indefinite because the Specification "does not provide
a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and, [thus,] one of ordinary
2
Appeal2018-006390
Application 14/705,315
skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the
invention." Final Act. 3. The Examiner also determined that the phrase
"rib-shaped elements" in claim 9 renders claim 9 further indefinite. Id.
Appellant does not contest these rejections. See Appeal Br. 3 (stating, with
regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ), "[t]his rejection has not
been traversed"). Thus, Appellant has waived any argument of error in these
rejections, which we summarily sustain. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975,
984, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the Board did not err in sustaining a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the applicant failed
to contest the rejection on appeal); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev. Jan. 2018 ("Ifa ground of rejection stated
by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, appellant has
waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may
summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner's answer.").
Rejection JJ-Anticipation
Appellant contests the Examiner's finding that Hyde's turbulators are
adapted such that the tilt angle of the turbulators with the longitudinal axis is
substantially constant along the curved longitudinal axis. Appeal Br. 4--5;
see Final Act. 4 ( citing Hyde ,r 17). In particular, Appellant argues that
Figure 2 of Hyde illustrates each of the turbulators arranged as parallel
within a passage. Id. at 4, 5.
The Examiner responds by emphasizing that "Hyde clearly states that
in the preferred arrangement the turbulators 'are arranged at 45° angles to
the direction of flow"' and explaining that "the direction of flow is ...
3
Appeal2018-006390
Application 14/705,315
curved since [the passages are curved, and] the flow direction must follow
the direction of the walls of each passage." Ans. 2 ( citing Hyde ,r 17). Thus,
the Examiner finds that "because the flow direction is curved and the
turbulators are arranged at 45° angles to the direction of flow, the turbulators
cannot be parallel as Appellant asserts." Id.
Appellant directs our attention to the text of Hyde's disclosure, in
paragraph 16, to interpret how Hyde is using the phrase "direction of flow."
Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant points out that Hyde describes three
passages formed "in the radially outward direction" and three passages
formed "in the radially inward direction," with the various passages being
"separated by five radially extending" partitions. Id. at 2. Further,
Appellant emphasizes that Hyde discloses that "steam flows initially
upwardly or radially outwardly through the trailing edge passage 30 first,
and radially downwardly or inwardly through the leading edge passage 40
last." Id. at 2-3.
The appeal of this rejection turns on whether Hyde's turbulators 52
are parallel to one another, such that they have a substantially constant tilt
angle with the radial, or vertical, axis, along the vertical axis, as Appellant
contends, rather than a substantially constant tilt angle relative to the curved
longitudinal axis of the passage (i.e., channel) along the curved longitudinal
axis, as Appellant recites in claim 1. Hyde expressly states that, in passages
32-38, "turbulators 52 are arranged at 45° angles to the direction of flow"
and that, "[i]n passage 40, turbulators 54 are arranged at a 90° angle to the
direction of cooling flow." Hyde ,r,r 17, 18 (boldface omitted). That is, the
angular disposition of turbulators 52 and turbulators 54 is described relative
to the direction of flow (linear), rather than the flow path (curved).
4
Appeal2018-006390
Application 14/705,315
Although it is not entirely clear, Hyde's Figure 2 appears to show turbulators
52 extending parallel to one another, at an approximately 45° angle with a
vertical, or radial, axis, regardless of the differences in the relative extent of
curvature of the partitions of the various passages. Further, Figure 2 depicts
turbulators 54 extending parallel to one another, and at a 90° angle with a
vertical, or radial, axis, clearly not at a 90° angle with the walls (i.e.,
partition 50 and the left outer wall of the airfoil) defining passage 40 or with
a curved longitudinal axis of passage 40.
Considering the depictions of turbulators 52 and 54 in Hyde's Figure
2 in concert with Hyde's discussion of steam flowing upwardly or radially
outwardly through passage 30 and radially downwardly or inwardly through
passage 40, we do not find that Hyde discloses, by a preponderance of the
evidence, arranging turbulators 52 as recited in claim 1, namely, "adapted
such that the tilt angle is substantially constant along the curved longitudinal
axis," rather than such that a tilt angle with the vertical axis is substantially
constant along the vertical axis, as in the admitted prior art illustrated on the
left side of Appellant's Figure 3. See Spec. 2:25-30 (disclosing that
arranging the ribs with a fixed inclination with respect to a vertical axis
results in poor cooling performance in areas of cooling channels where the
longitudinal axis is curved), 4: 12-17 ( disclosing that the maximum variation
of relative inclination between two subsequent turbulators should not exceed
3° because this would result in lower cooling performance), 7:6-12
( disclosing that a tilt angle formed between the rib and the longitudinal axis,
"which is aligned with the direction of the cooling flow[,] is substantially
constant along the inner cooling channel" and that, "[ m Jore preferably, [ the
5
Appeal2018-006390
Application 14/705,315
tilt angle] may vary along the duct within a range of +/-3 ° around a mean
value").
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1, or claims 2, 3, and 6-11, which depend from claim 1, as anticipated
by Hyde.
Rejection III-Obviousness
In rejecting claims 4 and 5, the Examiner determines that the
particular tilt angle and spacing between turbulators are result-effective
variables and that, therefore, selection of the claimed angle ranges and
turbulator pitch would have been obvious as a matter of routine
optimization. See Final Act. 6-7. This reasoning does not cure the
aforementioned deficiency of Hyde with respect to the tilt angle of the
turbulators with the curved longitudinal axis being substantially constant
along the curved longitudinal axis, as recited in claim 1, from which claims
4 and 5 depend. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 as unpatentable over Hyde.
In rejecting claims 12-14, the Examiner determines that the particular
ratios of turbulator pitch to height and turbulator width to height, and the
lateral cross-sectional shape of the turbulator, would have been obvious
matters of design choice. See Final Act. 7-9. This reasoning does not cure
the aforementioned deficiency of Hyde with respect to the tilt angle of the
turbulators with the curved longitudinal axis being substantially constant
along the curved longitudinal axis, as recited in claim 1, from which claims
12-14 depend. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 12-14 as unpatentable over Hyde.
6
Appeal2018-006390
Application 14/705,315
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 stand under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite is summarily AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Hyde is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4, 5, and 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hyde is REVERSED.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7