Ex Parte Chlus et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2019

14728568 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/728,568 06/02/2015 Wieslaw A. Chlus
54549 7590 03/04/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
67097-2953PUS1;76592US2 1040
EXAMINER
SEHN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WIESLA WA. CHLUS and SETH J. THOMEN
Appeal2018-005655
Application 14/728,568
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
United Technologies Corporation ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 3-14,
and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant is the applicant as provided in 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46 and is identified
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005655
Application 14/728,568
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
Appellant's "disclosure relates to a gas turbine engine airfoil, and
more particularly, a platform cooling arrangement." Spec. ,II.
The specification explains that "[a]s gas turbine engines are pushed to
higher temperatures to increase power output and efficiency, distress of the
airfoil platforms increasingly becomes the service life limiting area." Id. ,I4.
Multiple approaches have been taken in the prior art to cooling airfoil
platforms, all with certain drawbacks. Id. Appellant claims a different
approach through an allegedly novel and non-obvious airfoil structure.
The Rejected Claims
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 are pending and rejected. Final Act. 1.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below.
1. An airfoil for a gas turbine engine comprising:
an airfoil extending from a platform that has first and
second circumferential sides respectively extending to first and
second circumferential edges, the first circumferential side
having a tapered surface at a first angle relative to a flow path
surface, and the second circumferential side having a cooling
hole extending toward the second circumferential edge at a
second angle relative to the flow path surface, the tapered
surface and the cooling hole axially aligned with one another,
wherein the airfoil includes a cooling passage, the cooling hole
in fluid communication with the cooling passage.
Appeal Br. 7.
The Appealed Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review:
claims 3-8, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Final Act. 3);
and
2
Appeal2018-005655
Application 14/728,568
claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Anderson2 and Torii3 (Final Act. 4).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 (35 US.C. § l 12(b))
Claims 3-8 and 16-19 are rejected as indefinite because they depend,
directly or indirectly, from canceled claims (i.e., claims 2 and 15). Final
Act. 4; see also Appeal Br. 7-9 (Claims App'x). Appellant does not contest
that these claims are indefinite for this reason. See Appeal Br. 3 (stating that
claims 3-8 and 16-19 "should depend" directly or indirectly from claims 1
and 14, respectively, and not from cancelled claims 2 and 15). Accordingly,
we summarily affirm the rejection of claims 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected as indefinite because they recite "the
airfoil" but it "is unclear whether 'the airfoil' refers to each airfoil of the
array or to a single specific airfoil in the array." Final Act. 4; see also
Appeal Br. 8-9 ( claims 14 and 20). Appellant argues against this rejection
stating:
There is no indefiniteness with respect to this term. "Adjacent
airfoils" are introduced, and "each airfoil" refers to the previous
"airfoils", which are described as "adjacent." "The airfoil§."
refers to these same airfoils.
Appeal. Br. 3 (emphasis added). Appellant's argument is not
persuasive. As the Examiner notes, the limitations at issue in claims 14 and
20 do not refer to "the airfoils" (plural) as Appellant argues; they refer to
"the airfoil" (singular), and it is unclear to which of the "airfoils" previously
2 US 6,261,053 Bl, issued July 17, 2001 ("Anderson").
3 US 8,231,348 B2, issued July 31, 2012 ("Torii").
3
Appeal2018-005655
Application 14/728,568
recited in claims 14 and 20 "the airfoil" refers. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ).
Rejection 2 (35 US.C. § 103)
Anderson "relates to a segment arrangement for platforms, in
particular in a gas turbine, along the surface of which a hot-gas stream
flows." Anderson 1: 5-7. The Examiner found that the Anderson teaches
the entire subject matter of claim 1 except an "airfoil including a cooling
passage, the cooling hole being in fluid communication with the cooling
passage." Final 4--5 (emphasis added). In Anderson, the airfoil platform
includes "cooling air chambers" and "film-cooling bores" extending to and
from them. See Anderson 8:59---65, 10:26-30, Fig. 9 (refs. 50, 50'), Fig. 14
(ref. 62). However, Anderson does not disclose that cooling air chambers
extend into the airfoils.
The Examiner found that Torri teaches "an airfoil (Figure 2b, No. 3)
with a cooling passage (17c), wherein the cooling passage is in fluid
communication with cooling holes (39-41) in the airfoil platforms ( 5)" and
concluded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art "to make the airfoil of Anderson with a cooling passage in fluid
communication with the cooling hole, as taught by Torii, for the purpose of
cooling the whole part of the blade in addition to the blade platform
( Column 6, Lines 2 8-31 ). " Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues: "There is nothing in the art to indicate that the
cooling air from the chambers 50, 50' is not sufficient for its purpose. The
cited references provide no reason for a skilled worker to provide this
feature in Anderson, as there is no apparent need or benefit to doing so."
Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply 1 ("The Examiner has not established that a
4
Appeal2018-005655
Application 14/728,568
skilled worker would modify Anderson with T orii. That is, there is no
reason or benefit to doing so for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief.").
This argument is not persuasive because the prior art (namely Torri) in fact
teaches to provide a cooling passage in an airfoil for the purpose and benefit
of cooling the airfoil. See, e.g., Torri 6:30-31 ("to cool the whole part of the
blade part 3.").
Appellant also argues that the proposed modification would not result
in a "cooling hole in fluid communication with the cooling passage," as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant points to the fact that
Anderson's film-cooling bores 62 are within the platform, whereas the
airfoils extend above the platform. Id. Appellant thus concludes that
Anderson's film-cooling bores 62 could not "fluidly connect" to a cooling
passage in an airfoil. Id. ( emphasis added). We are not persuaded. First,
claim 1 does not require the cooling hole to be directly connected to the
cooling passage; the two components need only be in "fluid communication"
with one another. Ans. 4. And, as the Examiner further responds, per the
proposed modification, Anderson's "cooling hole [i.e., film-cooling bore 62]
will still be connected to and receive air from an air chamber 50/50';
however, this air chamber will be part of the cooling passage." Id. In other
words, in the modified structure, Anderson's film-cooling bores 62,
Anderson's air chambers 50/50', and the new cooling passageway within the
airfoils themselves will be in fluid communication with another.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Because Appellant does not separately argue claims 3-14,
and 16-20, we likewise affirm their rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37( c)(l )(iv).
5
Appeal2018-005655
Application 14/728,568
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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
6