Ex Parte Beattie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

13485588 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/485,588 05/31/2012
12208 7590
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
10/02/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey S. Beattie
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.
62531US01-U73-012867 1007
EXAMINER
DAVIS, JASON GREGORY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY D. BEATTIE, SCOTT D. LEWIS,
MARK F. ZELESKY, RICARDO TRINDADE,
BRET M. TELLER, JEFFREY MICHAEL JACQUES, and
BRANDON M. RAPP
Appeal 2016-006816
Application 13/485,588
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, NATHAN A. ENGELS and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
3 decisionfinallyrejectingclaims 1-10, 12-15, 17, 18 and20-23. Claims 11,
4 16 and 19 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
5 We REVERSE.
6 Claims 1, 14 and 17 are independent. Claims 1 recites:
7 1. A turbine blade comprising:
The Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real
party in interest. (See "Appeal Brief for Appellant," dated Dec. 22, 2015, at
2).
Appeal 2016-006816
Application 13/485,588
1 an airfoil;
2 a platform surrounding a base of the airfoil;
3 a U-channel disposed in an aft face of the platform;
4 a root extending from the platform opposite the airfoil;
5 an internal cooling passage extending through the turbine blade;
6 a U-channel cooling hole extending in a downstream direction
7 from the internal cooling passage to a mate face of the
8 platform upstream of the U-channel;
9 a forward cooling passage extending through the turbine blade
10 upstream from the internal cooling passage; and
11 a first auxiliary cooling hole extending in an upstream direction
12 from the forward cooling passage to the mate face of the
13 platform, wherein the first auxiliary cooling hole is
14 upstream from the U-channel cooling hole;
15 wherein the U-channel cooling hole and the first auxiliary
16 cooling hole are configured to impinge cooling air onto an
17 adjacent platform face and to provide film cooling along
18 radially inner and outer faces of the U-channel with at least
19 a portion of the cooling air after the portion of the cooling
20 air has impinged on the adjacent platform face.
21 Claim 14 recites a method for cooling a U-channel in a gas turbine
22 engine shroud, including the steps of:
23 directing a first portion of the cooling air through a U-channel
24 cooling hole extending in a downstream direction from the
25 internal cooling passage to a mate face of the gas turbine engine
26 shroud upstream of the U-channel so that the first portion of the
27 cooling air impinges on an adjacent platform face;
28 and "passing the first portion of the cooling air into the U-channel to provide
29 film cooling to the U-channel."
3 0 Claim 1 7 recites a gas turbine engine component including a U-
31 channel disposed on an aft face of a shroud, "wherein the U-channel cooling
32 hole has an outlet positioned at an apex of the U-channel such that cooling
2
Appeal 2016-006816
Application 13/485,588
1 air discharging therefrom impinges onto an adjacent platform face and flows
2 along radially inner and outer faces of the U-channel after impinging on the
3 adjacent platform face."
4 The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 21 and 22 under pre-
5 AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Nadvit (US
6 2010/0329888 Al, publ. Dec. 30, 2010), Leone (US 6,428,270 Bl, issued
7 Aug. 6, 2002), Veltre (US 2007/0201979 Al, publ. Aug. 30, 2007) and
8 Liang (US 8,641,377 Bl, issued Feb. 4, 2014) (See Final Office Action,
9 mailed July 7, 2015 ("Final Act."), at 7). The Examiner also rejects claims
10 8, 17, 18, 20 and 23 under§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Nadvit,
11 Leone, Veltre, Liang and "design choice." (See Final Act. 16).
12 Nadvit describes a turbine rotor blade 200 including an airfoil 206; a
13 platform 204 surrounding a base 216 of the airfoil; and a shank 202. (See
14 Nadvit, paras. 42 & 43; & Fig. 9). As depicted in Figure 9 ofNadvit, the
15 platform 204 includes four platform cooling holes 930 opening through a
16 pressure side mate face 230. Figure 10 ofNadvit numbers these platform
17 cooling holes 930-1, 930-2, 930-3, 930-4, with cooling hole 930-4 opening
18 nearest to the trailing end edge 214. The Examiner finds that platform
19 cooling hole 930-4 corresponds to the U-channel cooling hole recited in
20 claim 1 and that the platform cooling hole 930-1 corresponds to the first
21 auxiliary cooling hole recited in claim 1. (See Final Act. 7).
22 Claim 1 recites:
23 a U-channel disposed in an aft face of the platform; [and]
24 a U-channel cooling hole extending in a downstream direction
25 from the internal cooling passage to a mate face of the
26 platform upstream of the U-channel;
3
Appeal 2016-006816
Application 13/485,588
1 wherein the U-channel cooling hole and the first auxiliary
2 cooling hole are configured to impinge cooling air onto an
3 adjacent platform face and to provide film cooling along
4 radially inner and outer faces of the U-channel with at least
5 a portion of the cooling air after the portion of the cooling
6 air has impinged on the adjacent platform face.
7 Although Nadvit does not describe a U-channel as recited in claim 1,
8 Leone describes a turbine rotor assembly 10 in which the trailing end of each
9 platform 5 0 includes a pair of "angel wings" 46, 48. The Examiner correctly
10 finds that the upper "angel wing" 46, together with the trailing end of the
11 platform, defines a U-channel. (See Final Act. 9). These "angel wings" 46,
12 48 interact with flanges supported by stator vanes or nozzles 38 adjacent the
13 blades 14 to form labyrinth seals for restricting the ingestion of hot primary
14 air or gas. (See Leone, col. 3, 11. 12-19 & Fig. 1). The Examiner correctly
15 finds that one familiar with the teachings ofNadvit and Leone would have
16 had reason to add such "angel wings" or flanges defining a U-channel to
17 Nadvit's platform. As the Examiner explains, the proposed modification
18 "would [have] form[ed] the inner boundary of the hot gas path." (Final Act.
19 9 & 10). More specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
20 reason to add such "angel wings" or flanges to Nadvit's platform to provide
21 a labyrinth seal to restrict the ingestion of hot primary air or gas into the
22 space adjacent and below the trailing end of the platform.
23 In the rejection applicable to claims 1 and 14, the Examiner proposes
24 no modification of the positions ofNadvit's platform cooling holes 930 to
25 accompany the addition of the U-channel. Instead, the Examiner reads
26 Liang "as evidence that the cooling air ofNadvit discharged from cooling
27 holes 930-1 through 930-4 is capable of providing impingement for the
28 adjacent platform and film cooling after the impingement cooling." (Final
4
Appeal 2016-006816
Application 13/485,588
1 Act. 10). Liang describes a turbine rotor blade including a platform having a
2 platform cooling circuit. (See Liang, col. 3, 11. 13-15). In one embodiment,
3 as depicted in Figure 6, the platform includes two cooling circuits. Each
4 cooling circuit includes a plurality of small cooling air channels 3 7
5 extending through the pressure side of the platform toward openings in the
6 pressure side mate face. (See generally Liang, col. 3, 1. 29 - col. 4, 1. 3).
7 Liang teaches that "[ t ]his design allows for discharging the cooling air
8 through multiple holes to impinge on to the adjacent platform mate-face and
9 form an air curtain to prevent hot gas ingestion into the mate-face gap."
10 (Liang, col. 4, 11. 39-42).
11 In addition, the Examiner finds that:
12 When considering the combination of the prior art, the cooling
13 air discharged from the cooling holes of Nadvit ... would
14 provide impingement cooling for the adjacent platform (Liang,
15 column 4, lines 39-42) and then flow downstream to provide
16 film cooling for the platform (Liang, column 4, lines 49-50) and
17 the U channel of Leone. Also, the turbine blade structure of
18 Nadvit as modified by Veltre and Leone[,] comprising a platform
19 with auxiliary and U channel cooling holes and a U channel[,]
20 appears to be substantially similar to the Appellant[s'] claimed
21 [ subject matter] and it appears would function in the same
22 manner by discharging cooling air out of the platform mate face.
23 (Examiner's Answer, mailed May 16, 2016 ("Ans."), at 17). These findings
24 are not persuasive.
25 Contrary to the Examiner's findings, the record lacks evidence that
26 the proposed combination of prior art would have achieved the claimed film
27 cooling. The structure yielded by adding a U-channel to the platform of
28 Nadvit would not be so similar to the structure described in the Specification
29 as to imply that Nadvit's platform cooling hole 930-4, or the combination of
30 all ofNadvit's cooling holes 930, would provide film cooling along radially
5
Appeal 2016-006816
Application 13/485,588
1 inner and outer faces of the U-channel in the same, or substantially the same,
2 manner as the U-channel cooling hole described in the Specification.
3 Paragraph 21 of the Specification describes the position of the U-channel
4 cooling hole in some detail, teaching that the "U-channel cooling hole 70 is
5 positioned at the juncture, or apex, of first flange 92, second flange 94 and
6 base 96, beneath trailing edge 64 of airfoil 40." The Examiner articulates no
7 persuasive reason why Nadvit's platform cooling hole 930-4 would have
8 found itself in the position taught in the Specification once Nadvit's turbine
9 blade was modified in the fashion proposed by the Examiner. (See "Appeal
10 Brief for Appellant," dated Dec. 22, 2015 ("App. Br."), at 14). Because the
11 Examiner has not shown that gas flows over turbine blades and stator vanes
12 in turbomachines are predictable, it cannot be assumed that a cooling hole
13 not located as taught by the Specification would provide film cooling along
14 radially inner and outer faces of the U-channel in the same, or substantially
15 the same, manner as the U-channel cooling hole described in the
16 Specification.
1 7 In particular, the teachings of Liang do not remedy this deficiency.
18 Liang describes a turbine blade having small cooling air channels 3 7 that
19 "form an air curtain to prevent hot gas ingestion into the mate-face gap."
20 (Liang, col. 4, 11. 39-42 (italics added for emphasis)). As the Appellants
21 correctly point out, Liang says nothing about providing film cooling along
22 radially inner and outer faces of the U-channel. (See App. Br. 9).
23 Thus, we are not persuaded that the combination proposed by the
24 Examiner satisfies the limitation:
25 wherein the U-channel cooling hole and the first auxiliary
26 cooling hole are configured to impinge cooling air onto an
27 adjacent platform face and to provide film cooling along radially
6
Appeal 2016-006816
Application 13/485,588
1 inner and outer faces of the U-channel with at least a portion of
2 the cooling air after the portion of the cooling air has impinged
3 on the adjacent platform face,
4 as recited in claim 1. For similar reasons, we are not persuaded that the
5 proposed combination would perform the step of "passing the first portion of
6 the cooling air into the U-channel to provide film cooling to the U-channel,"
7 as recited in claim 17. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
8 1-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 21 and 22 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over
9 Nadvit, Leone, Veltre and Liang.
10 With regard to the remaining claims, the Examiner has not shown that
11 positioning the U-channel cooling hole at an apex of the U-channel, as
12 recited in claim 17, would have been a matter of mere design choice. A
13 finding of "obvious design choice" is precluded where the claimed structure
14 and the function it performs are different from the prior art. In re Chu, 66
15 F.3d 292,299 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed.
16 Cir. 1992)). Here, the recited position of the U-channel cooling hole
17 performs a function, namely, impinging cooling air onto an adjacent
18 platform face and providing film cooling along radially inner and outer faces
19 of the U-channel, which is not taught by the prior art. (Cf App. Br. 15 & 16
20 (pointing out that a U-channel cooling hole positioned as taught in the
21 Specification performs differently than the small cooling air channels 3 7
22 described by Liang)). Because the Examiner's reasoning, as set forth on
23 pages 16 and 17 of the Final Office Action, is not persuasive, we do not
24 sustain the rejection of claims 8, 17, 18, 20 and 23 under§ 103(a) as being
25 unpatentable over Nadvit, Leone, Veltre, Liang and "design choice."
7
Appeal 2016-006816
Application 13/485,588
1 DECISION
2 We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10, 12-15,
3 17, 18 and 20-23. More specifically, we do not sustain the rejection of
4 claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 21 and 22 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable
5 over Nadvit, Leone, Veltre and Liang; or the rejection of claims 8, 17, 18, 20
6 and 23 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nadvit, Leone, Veltre,
7 Liang and "design choice."
REVERSED
8