Ex Parte Jendrix et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 201311616176 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/616,176 12/26/2006 Richard W. Jendrix 196792 (07783-0274) 2108 31450 7590 09/20/2013 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC 100 PINE STREET P.O. BOX 1166 HARRISBURG, PA 17108-1166 EXAMINER ELLIS, RYAN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2013 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 RICHARD W. JENDRIX and CORY WILLIAMS ____________________ Appeal 2011-008835 Application 11/616,176 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008835 Application 11/616,176 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants,1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-4 and 6,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art3 (hereinafter “AAPA”) and Papell (US 4,529,358, iss. Jul. 16, 1985). Ans. 3-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. An airfoil component comprising: a body having a leading edge and a trailing edge; an internal cooling passageway; a plurality of pinched openings along and adjacent the trailing edge, the plurality of pinched openings being in communication with the internal cooling passageway; and wherein the plurality of pinched openings are configured with a pinched geometry that provides structural stability during casting and has a cross-section that sufficiently restricts cooling fluid flow through the plurality of pinched openings to provide efficient component operation. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest General Electric Company. Br. 2. 2 Claims 5 and 7 have been cancelled, and claims 8-20 have been withdrawn. Br. 2. 3 The Examiner lists Prior Art “Figure 3” of Appellants’ instant application as Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art. Ans. 3. Appeal 2011-008835 Application 11/616,176 3 ANALYSIS Appellants argue claims 1-4 and 6 as a group. Br. 5-7. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-4 and 6 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). The Examiner’s rejection acknowledges that AAPA fails to teach “[a] pinched opening that is configured with a pinched geometry that provides structural stability during casting and has a cross-section that sufficiently restricts cooling fluid flow through the pinched opening to provide efficient component operation.” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that Papell taught such a pinched opening (Id. at 4 (citing Papell, col. 5, ll. 42-45) and concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art . . . to modify the trailing edge cooling holes of [A]APA by constructing them with a pinched shape as taught by Papell for the purpose of increasing the effectiveness of the trailing edge openings” (Id. (citing Papell, abstr.)). Appellants contend that Papell’s cusp shaped “passageway 13 is disposed proximate the apex of the turbine blade body,” not “along and adjacent the trailing edge as claimed by App[ellant].” Br. 5-6 (emphasis in original). Appellants’ contention is not persuasive since it fails to address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner which is based on modification of AAPA’s trailing edge cooling holes that are along and adjacent the trailing edge with the pinched openings of Papell—not bodily incorporation of Papell’s passageway 13 into the apex of AAPA’s turbine blade body. Appellants also contend that Appellants “configure[] the pinched openings to provide for reduced trail edge slot flow, which is not taught or suggested by Papell.” Br. 6. The Examiner “maintain[ed] that if the shape Appeal 2011-008835 Application 11/616,176 4 of Papell is incorporated into the trailing edge openings of [A]APA that the modified openings would function in the same manner as Appellants’ invention due to their similar geometries.” Ans. 6. We recognize that the language of claim 1 relating to “sufficiently restrict[ing] cooling fluid flow through the plurality of pinched openings” is a functional limitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, as long as Papell’s passageway 13 is capable of restricting cooling flow, the passageway of Papell satisfies the functional limitation. Because of the similarities in geometry between Appellants’ opening (see Figure 8) and Papell’s passageway 13 (see Papell, fig. 4), the Examiner is on solid ground in finding that the recited functional limitation would also be present in AAPA as modified by Papell. As such, Appellants have the burden of establishing that the features would not be present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed Cir. 1990) (citation omitted) (“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Appellants have not come forth with any evidence or persuasive reasoning to show that Papell’s passageways would not be capable of restricting cooling fluid flow. Moreover, the Examiner responded that “[t]he shape of the opening (Figure 4) of Papell has a reduced cross-sectional area which would inherently reduce the flow through the opening as claimed by Appellant[s].” Ans. 6. Appeal 2011-008835 Application 11/616,176 5 Appellants further contend that “since no film cooling would occur downstream of th[e] location [along and adjacent the trailing edge],” one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Papell since “Papell teaches that the cusp shaped passageway increases film cooling of the blade and wall area coverage.” Br. 6 (citing Papell, abstr., col. 4, ll. 54-63, fig. 8). Appellants’ contention does not adequately explain why the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for modifying AAPA’s trailing edge openings with Papell’s geometry (i.e., to increase the effectiveness of the trailing edge openings) lacks rational underpinnings, especially in light of both the Examiner’s finding that “the openings of Papell have been shown to be an effective way to cool a turbine blade” and the fact that trailing edge openings are configured to “provide sufficient cooling along the trail edge of the turbine component.” Ans. 4, 6; Spec. para [0006]; see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds . . . [require] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). For the foregoing reasons, Appellants fail to show error by the Examiner in concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 is unpatentable over AAPA and Papell, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-4 and 6 which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA and Papell. Appeal 2011-008835 Application 11/616,176 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). AFFIRMED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation