Ex Parte Chlus et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

13586071 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/586,071 08/15/2012 Wieslaw A. Chlus
54549 7590 03/28/2019
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.
67097-1981PUS1;62879US01 3652
EXAMINER
CORDAY, CAMERON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 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. THOMEN1
Appeal2018-006956
Application 13/586,071
Technology Center 3700
Before: JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Wieslaw A. Chlus and Seth J. Thomen ("Appellants") appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-14,
and 16-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants' Appeal Brief, United Technologies Corporation
is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006956
Application 13/586,071
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is directed to an airfoil having tip cooling
features. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An airfoil for a gas turbine engine comprising:
pressure and suction walls spaced apart from one another
and joined at leading and trailing edges to provide an airfoil that
extends in a radial direction, the airfoil has a cooling passage
arranged between the pressure and suction walls that extends
toward a tip of the airfoil, the tip includes a pocket separating the
pressure and suction walls, wherein the pressure wall has a notch
at the trailing edge that is in fluid communication with and
adjoining the pocket; and
scarfed cooling holes fluidly connect the cooling passage
to the pocket, the scarfed cooling holes including a portion
recessed into a face of the suction wall and exposed to the pocket,
the scarfed cooling holes include first and second sets of scarfed
holes, the second set of scarfed holes oriented differently than
the first set of scarfed holes, wherein the second set of scarfed
holes are at an angle relative to the radial direction and near the
notch.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Downs et al.
Chlus
Liang
Hatton
US 2003/0021684 Al
US 6,824,359 B2
US 2008/0118367 Al
US 2011/0227344 Al
2
Jan.30,2003
Nov. 30, 2004
May 22, 2008
Sept. 22, 2011
Appeal2018-006956
Application 13/586,071
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Downs, Liang, and Chlus.
II. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Downs, Liang, Chlus, and Hatton.
OPINION
Rejection I; Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, and 16-19
The Examiner finds that Downs discloses many of the limitations of
claim 1 including a blade having a tip with a pocket separating pressure and
suction walls, and a set of scarfed cooling holes fluidly connecting a cooling
passage to the pocket. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner notes that Downs'
pressure wall does not include a notch and that Downs does not include a
second set of scarfed cooling holes oriented differently than the first set of
scarfed cooling holes. Final Act. 3. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
Liang has a tip with a notch and considers that it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the turbine art to modify the airfoil of Downs to
have a notch as taught by Liang in order "to improve cooling at the blade
tip." Id. The Examiner also considers that it would have been obvious to
modify the airfoil of Downs to add a second set of scarfed holes oriented
differently than the first set of scarfed holes "to provide enhanced cooling of
the trailing tip portion of the blade relative to holes that are not angled." Id.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the portions of Liang upon which the
Examiner relies do not mention "using a notch to 'improve cooling at the
blade tip' directly or even inferentially." Appeal Br. 4. Appellants contend
3
Appeal2018-006956
Application 13/586,071
that although Liang adds cooling holes 7 4a in conjunction with a notch,
"Liang does not associate any cooling benefits to the use of its notch." Id.
The Examiner responds that an object of Liang is "to provide effective
cooling to the surfaces of the blade tip section, and particularly to the
squealer tip rail," and because Liang uses a notch structure as part of the
preferred embodiment for providing effective cooling to the blade tip
section, Liang uses "a notch to improve cooling at the blade tip." Ans. 2.
In reply, Appellants reiterate that Liang does not attribute improved
cooling to use of a notch. Reply Br. 2. Appellants assert that because "the
Examiner provides no support that modifying Downs with Liang's notch
would enhance the trailing tip cooling ... the Examiner cannot argue any
reason or benefit for a skilled worker modifying Downs to include this
feature," at best, a notch is described. Reply Br. 3.
Although we appreciate that Liang depicts a notch as part of a blade
intended "to provide effective cooling ... particularly to the squealer tip rail"
(Liang ,r 4; Fig. 2), the Examiner has not sufficiently established that the
notch is what improves the cooling, or is required to improve cooling, so that
one of ordinary skill in the art would include a notch in Downs' blade.
Liang' s "Summary of the Invention" discloses aspects of the invention none
of which include a notch. Liang ,r,r 5-7. While both the Examiner (Ans. 2)
and Appellants (Reply Br. 3) note that Liang claims a notch in dependent
claim 6, this fact does not support the position of either the Examiner or
Appellants because it does not state or imply that a notch improves cooling.
Because Liang does not provide sufficient disclosure that a notch improves
cooling, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's
finding that "Liang discloses that this feature is designed to improve cooling
4
Appeal2018-006956
Application 13/586,071
at the blade tip." Final Act. 3. As such, it is not evident that one having
ordinary skill in the turbine art would "modify the airfoil of Downs and
change the trailing edge to have a notch ... to improve cooling at the blade
tip and provide a cooling fluid flow to the squealer tip rail," as the Examiner
determines. Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
and claims 2, 3, and 6-10 depending from claim 1 as unpatentable over
Downs, Liang and Chlus. Independent claim 11 recites limitations
substantially similar to those discussed above regarding claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 8 (Claims App.). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 11 and associated dependent claims 12, 14,
and 16-19, as unpatentable over Downs, Liang and Chlus.
Rejection II; Claim 13
The Examiner use of Hatton does remedy the deficiency in Rejection I
discussed above. See Final Act. 6-7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over Downs, Liang, Chlus, and Hatton.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16-19 is reversed.
REVERSED
5