Ex Parte Cowan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2017

13173903 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/173,903 06/30/2011 Curtis C. Cowan 67097- 1472PUS1;49204US01 9948
54549 7590 08/15/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
AMAR, MARC J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2017 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 CURTIS C. COWAN and JORGE I. FARAH
Appeal 2016-005648
Application 13/173,903
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision2 rejecting claims 1—16 and 20-25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated June 11, 2015 (“Final
Act.”).
Appeal 2016-005648
Application 13/173,903
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A nozzle liner for a rotatable nozzle, said liner comprising:
a seal land,
a rotatable seal in contact with the seal land for moving
with said nozzle, said seal including:
an inner liner; and
an outer liner having a first diffusion hole for distributing
cooling air if said rotatable seal is in a first position and a second
diffusion hole for distributing cooling air if said rotatable seal is
in said first position and if in a second position, wherein said first
diffusion hole is spaced axially forward of said second diffusion
hole relative to a longitudinal axis of said nozzle.
REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 1—4, 9—13, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kehret (US 2009/0072044 Al; published Mar.
19, 2009) and Farah (US 2006/0137324 Al; published June 29, 2006).
II. Claims 5—8, 14—16, and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kehret, Farah, and Cowan (US 7,377,099 B2;
issued May 27, 2008).
3 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kehret has been withdrawn. See Pre-Appeal Brief
Conference Decision dated October 1, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-005648
Application 13/173,903
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Kehret discloses outer liner 52 having first and second diffusion holes 48, as
claimed. Final Act. 6 (citing Kehret, Fig. 4C); id. at fn2 (citing Kehret 131
(“a multiple of cooling liner openings 48”)). The Examiner also finds that
Kehret discloses first hole 48 “axially forward” of second hole 48, however,
the Examiner determines that Kehret does not disclose that such spacing is
“relative to a longitudinal axis of said nozzle,” as claimed. Id. The
Examiner relies on Farah for teaching “outer liner 28 includ[ing] cooling
airflow openings 36 spaced along a longitudinal axis A ... of the exhaust
nozzle 18.” Id. at 7 (citing Farah, Fig. 1). The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious “to modify Kehret with Farah’s longitudinally
spaced cooling openings for the purpose of facilitating an increased airflow
resulting in enhanced cooling of Kehret’s gas turbine exhaust nozzle.” Id. at
8. In support, the Examiner reasons that “[i]t is standard for a [person of
ordinary skill in the art] to use cooling openings to enhance cooling and
therefore increase the life of a gas turbine exhaust liner.” Ans. 4 (citing
Kehret 131 (“The arcuate cooling liner leading edge 42, 44 includes a
multiple of cooling liner openings 48 which are preferably rectilinear slot
shaped openings to distribute cooling airflow C over both the inner ‘cold-
side’ and outer ‘hot-side’ surfaces thereof.”).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner’s proposed
modification would render Kehret “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,”
3
Appeal 2016-005648
Application 13/173,903
and that the Examiner’s rationale lacks factual support in that a person of
ordinary skill would not have been led to make the Examiner’s proposed
modification. Appeal Br. 3. In support, Appellants submit that Kehret
discloses that “the ‘cooling liner openings 48 are located through the outer
liner sheet 52 and are directed generally parallel to the cooling liner panels
36, 38 to direct a smooth film cooling boundary layer of the cooling airflow
C,”’ (Reply Br. 2 (quoting Kehret 133)), and that ‘“[t]he provision of a
smooth film cooling boundary layer of the cooling airflow minimizes
thermal cycling and mitigates the necessity of exotic alloys in this area of the
convergent section’” {id. (quoting Kehret 19)). Appellants argue that
a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would no[t] locate additional
cooling liner openings axially spaced from the liner openings 48
in Kehret because the additional openings would not be parallel
to the liner panels 36, 38 and would decrease the amount of flow
directed parallel to the liner panels through the openings 48 to
create a “smooth film cooling boundary layer” which “mitigates
the necessity of exotic alloys” as intended in Kehret. [Rather],
[t]he teachings from Kehret would lead a [person of ordinary
skill in the art] to add additional liner openings 48, which are
parallel to the liner panels 36, 38 and not . . . axially spaced
diffusion holes as claimed.
Id. Appellants contend that adding holes as proposed by the Examiner
“would reduce [the] ‘smooth film cooling boundary layer.’” Id.
Figure 4C of Kehret is reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2016-005648
Application 13/173,903
Figure 4C depicts “a section view of the convergent section cooling liner
body cam interface,” including cooling liner opening 48 on a vertical, radial
surface of the nozzle. Kehret 119. We are persuaded by Appellants’
argument that one skilled in the art would not have been led to modify
Kehret as proposed by the Examiner, i.e., to add a hole, in outer liner 52,
axially forward of hole 48 relative to the longitudinal axis of the nozzle as
depicted in Figure 4C, because the additional, second hole would not direct
cooling airflow parallel to panels 36, 38, and also would likely decrease the
effectiveness of holes 48 for creating a smooth film cooling boundary layer,
as disclosed in Kehret.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2-4, 9, 10, 20, and 21 depending therefrom.
Independent claim 11 recites the same claim limitation as independent claim
5
Appeal 2016-005648
Application 13/173,903
1 with respect to axially spacing the first and second diffusion holes. See
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.). Therefore, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 and claims 12, 13, and 22
depending therefrom.
Rejection II
The Examiner’s reliance on Cowan does not cure the deficiencies in
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, as discussed supra,
and therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5—8,
14—16, and 23—25, which depend from claims 1 or 11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—16 and 20—25 is reversed.
REVERSED
6