Ex Parte Chila

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

13652275 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/652,275
82438 7590
GE Power & Water
Fletcher Yoder PC
FILING DATE
10/15/2012
09/16/2016
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald James Chila
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.
234182-5 (GETH:0015-l) 4947
EXAMINER
SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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 RONALD JAMES CHILA
Appeal2014-005070
Application 13/652,275 1
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ronald James Chila (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
claims 1-13 and 15-20 as unpatentable over Intile (US 7,010,921 B2, iss.
Mar. 14, 2006), Tuthill (US 8,051,663 B2, iss. Nov. 8, 2011), and Foltz (US
4,896,510, iss. Jan. 30, 1990), and claim 14 as unpatentable over Intile,
Tuthill, Foltz, and Colibaba-Evulet (US 7,260,935 B2, iss. Aug. 28, 2007).
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is General Electric
Company. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Nov. 15, 2013).
Appeal2014-005070
Application 13/652,275
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to "a system for cooling a combustor
liner used in a combustor of a gas turbine engine." Spec. i-f 2.
Claims 1, 10, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a turbine engine comprising:
a combustor comprising a hollow wall having a
sleeve disposed about a combustor liner, wherein the
combustor liner comprises an inner surface facing
inwardly toward a combustion chamber;
a first air flow path in an upstream direction through
the hollow wall toward a head end of the combustor,
wherein the first air flow path is at least partially
bet\'l/een the sleeve and a second air flo\'l/ path in a
downstream direction, and the first air flow path
comprises a plurality of bypass openings extending
through the combustor liner to the inner surface,
wherein the plurality of bypass openings is configured
to supply a first cooling film to a downstream end
portion of the combustor liner; and
the second air flow path in the downstream direction
opposite the upstream direction through the hollow
wall at least partially between the first air flow path and
the combustor liner, wherein the second flow path
comprises a plurality of film holes extending through
the combustor liner to the inner surface, and the
plurality of film holes is configured to supply a second
cooling film to the downstream end portion of the
combustor liner downstream of the first cooling film.
2
Appeal2014-005070
Application 13/652,275
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Intile discloses most of the limitations of
independent claims 1, 10, and 20, but fails to disclose "a plurality of bypass
openings through the liner along the first air flow path, or a plurality of film
holes through the liner along the second air flow path." Final Act. 2 (mailed
May 28, 2013); see also id. at 5. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
"Foltz teaches using a plurality of bypass openings (28) along the first flow
path (44)" and "Tuthill teaches using a plurality of film holes (230) at an
angle between 30-60 degrees (figure 2) through the liner (207), in a second
flow path (220) that is opposite to the first flow path (figure 2)." Id. at 2-3;
see also id. at 5---6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
for a person of ordinary skill in the art to "combine the bypass openings of
Foltz and the film holes of Tuthill, with the system oflntile, in order to
create an interior cooling film on the liner (Col. 3, 11. 13-18 of Foltz and Col.
3, 11. 32-36 of Tuthill)." Id. at 3; see also id. at 6.
Appellant argues that "Foltz appears to explicitly teach[] away from
'bypass openings' as recited by the independent claims 1, 10, and 20."
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant asserts that in contrast to the bypass openings 41 of
the Specification, which "provide a direct flow path into the combustion
chamber 38 that bypasses the cooling channels," holes 28 of Foltz "prevent
direct flow of air from the path 26 into and through [] holes 28." Id. at 7-8
(emphasis omitted). Moreover, Appellant contends that Foltz's holes 28 "do
not appear to bypass anything." Reply Br. 3 (filed Mar. 10, 2014)
(underlining omitted). Thus, according to Appellant, Foltz's holes 28 "do
not appear to be bypass openings because the holes 28 do not appear to
3
Appeal2014-005070
Application 13/652,275
bypass anything, and the holes 28 fail to provide a direct flow path." Reply
Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 11.
We do not agree with Appellant's assessment that Foltz's holes 28
teach away from the claimed "bypass openings." Although we appreciate
that Appellant's Specification describes bypass openings 41 as providing a
"direct" flow path into the combustion chamber, we note that, "a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a
claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment."
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004 ). The challenge is to interpret claims in view of the specification
without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the
claims. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2003). In this case, neither of claims 1, 10, or 20 requires bypass
openings that provide a "direct" flow path into the combustion chamber, as
Appellant urges, but merely to supply a cooling film to the inner surface of
the combustor liner. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
uponforpatentability. In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348(CCPA1982). Here,
Foltz specifically discloses that the purpose of holes 28 provided in liners
18, 19 is to allow a stream of air to "be directed substantially as a film along
the interior surface of the combustor liner." Foltz, col. 3, 11. 3-7.
We further note that although Foltz's holes 28 do not bypass cooling
channels, nonetheless, the combined teachings of Intile, Tuthill, and Foltz
disclose Foltz's openings 28 that bypass Intile's cooling channels C, as
modified by Tuthill. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
4
Appeal2014-005070
Application 13/652,275
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Appellant further argues that the principle of operation of Foltz is
different from that of Intile and Tuthill. See Appeal Br. 9. Appellant
explains that Intile and Tuthill direct air upstream though an annulus toward
the fuel nozzle from the compressor discharge casing, whereas Foltz
discloses directing air downstream away from the nozzle. See id. (citing
Intile, col. 4, 11. 9--44, Fig. 1; Tuthill, col. 3, 11. 24--36; Foltz, col. 2, 11. 40-
62, Fig. 1 ). According to Appellant, as "the primary downstream direction
of the air flow 26 of Foltz is substantially different than the primary
upstream direction of the flows taught by Tuthill and Intile," "changing the
primary direction of cooling flow through the annulus about a combustor is
neither trivial nor [an] obvious change." Reply Br. 4; see also Appeal Br.
10. Thus, Appellant contends, the Examiner's modification of Intile and
Tuthill with Foltz's holes 28 would be contrary to the intended purpose of
Foltz, which is to, "substantially eliminate the plugging of the holes 28 with
dirt particles," by reversing the direction of the airflow from a downstream
direction 26 to an upstream direction 44. Appeal Br. 10, Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because the Examiner
is not modifying the direction of airflow in the combustor liner of Intile, as
modified by Tuthill and Foltz. More specifically, the Examiner is not
proposing to use the particular construction of Foltz's combustor (i.e., shield
32 for reversing airflow). Rather, the Examiner is proposing to provide
Foltz's holes 28 in the combustor liner of Intile, as modified by Tuthill, to
allow the formation of a cooling film along the interior surface of the liner.
5
Appeal2014-005070
Application 13/652,275
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection
it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be
physically inserted into the device of the other. The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted).
The relevant inquiry in this case is whether the Examiner has set forth "some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)).
An improvement that is nothing more than the predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions is likely to be obvious.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Here, the modification proposed by the Examiner is
nothing more than the mere application of a known technique (i.e., the use of
Foltz's openings in a combustor's liner to provide a cooling film along the
inner surface of the combustor liner) to prior art ready for the improvement,
namely, the combustor of Intile, as modified by Tuthill. See id. at 417.
Although we appreciate Appellant's concern that Foltz discloses reversing
the airflow, nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner that the direction of air
flow along the exterior surface of the combustor chambers in each of Intile,
Tuthill, and Foltz, prior to flowing through the holes into the combustion
chamber, is "counter to the direction of flow through each respective
combustion chamber." Ans. 2 (mailed Jan. 24, 2014); see also Intile, Fig. 2,
Tuthill, Fig. 2, and Foltz, Fig. 1. We thus do not agree with Appellant that
the principle of operation of Foltz is different from that of Intile and Tuthill.
6
Appeal2014-005070
Application 13/652,275
Furthermore, Foltz discloses that holes 28 provide a cooling film
along the interior surface of combustor liner 18, 19 regardless of whether air
flows in downstream direction 26 or upstream direction 44. See Foltz,
Abstract, col. 3, 11. 3-7. Hence, Foltz's holes 28 would likewise provide a
cooling film along the interior surface of the combustor liner of Intile, as
modified by Tuthill. Appellant has not persuasively shown otherwise.
Although we appreciate Appellant's argument that the purpose of Foltz is to
eliminate the plugging of holes 28 with dirt particles, Foltz accomplishes
this by reversing the direction of flow with shield 32, which does not affect
the creation of a cooling film by holes 28. See id., col. 3, 11. 38-52, col. 4, 11.
16-25, Fig. 2.
Even though we appreciate Appellant's position that the resulting
location ofFoltz's holes 28 in the combustor liner of Intile, as modified by
Tuthill, would not prevent the plugging of holes 28 with dirt particles,
nonetheless, we note that if there are tradeoffs involved regarding features,
costs, manufacturability, or the like, such things do not necessarily prevent
the proposed combination. See Appeal Br. 10-11; see also Winner Int'!
Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The fact
that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however,
should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference
with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained,
should be weighed against one another."). Naturally, some adaptation of the
combustor liner of Intile, as modified by Tuthill and Foltz, would be
required to avoid plugging of bypass holes 28 with dirt particles, such as,
providing a filter to the air flow prior to entering annular region 24 and
7
Appeal2014-005070
Application 13/652,275
flowing upstream toward the fuel nozzle from the compressor discharge
casing. See Intile, Figs. 1, 2. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 ("A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
Appellant further argues that the combined teachings of Intile, Tuthill,
and Foltz fail to disclose "a plurality of bypass openings upstream of a
plurality of axial cooling channels," as called for by independent claim 10.
Appeal Br. 12 (italics omitted). According to Appellant, "Intile does not
teach a plurality of bypass openings," "Tuthill does not appear to remedy
this deficiency," and Foltz does not teach "bypass openings [] arranged
upstream of the plurality of axial cooling channels." Id. (italics omitted).
Similarly, Appellant contends that the combined teachings of Intile, Tuthill,
and Foltz fail to disclose that, "each bypass opening is disposed upstream
relative to an axial cooling channel," as called for by independent claim 20.
Id. at 13 (italics omitted).
Appellant's contention is not persuasive because nonobviousness
cannot be shown by attacking Intile, Tuthill, and Foltz individually when the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner is based on a combination of these
references. We agree with the Examiner that because Intile' s axial channels
Care located "at the downstream end of combustor liner [112]," when
providing Foltz's holes 28 in the combustor of Intile, as modified by Tuthill,
holes 28 are "placed upstream from the axial cooling channels (C)." Ans. 3;
see also Intile, Figs. 2, 3. Therefore, because "air that passes through the
cooling holes [28] would bypass the axial cooling channels [CJ" in the
combustor liner of Intile, as modified by Tuthill and Foltz, holes 28
8
Appeal2014-005070
Application 13/652,275
constitute "bypass openings," as called for by each of independent claims 1,
10, and 20. Id.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20, Appellant
does not present any other substantive arguments separate from the
arguments presented supra. See Appeal Br. 14. Accordingly, for the
foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-3, 13 and 15-20 as unpatentable over Intile, Tuthill, and Foltz.
As to the rejection of claim 2, Appellant relies on the arguments
presented above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See id. at 14--15.
Therefore, for the same reasons, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim 2
over the combined teachings of Intile, Tuthill, and Foltz.
Lastly, in regards to the rejection of claim 14, Appellant does not
present any other substantive arguments separate from the arguments
presented supra. See id. at 15. Therefore, we also sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 14 as unpatentable over Intile, Tuthill,
Foltz, and Colibaba-Evulet.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9