Ex Parte Krückels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

13247429 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/247,429 09/28/2011
117185 7590 09/19/2016
ALSTOM TECHNOLOGY, LTD.
Studio Torta
C/O Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JOrg Kriickels
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.
1033275-000619 5409
EXAMINER
PRAGER, JESSE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2016 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORG KRUCKLES, TANGUY ARZEL,
JOSE ANGUISOLA MCFEAT, and MARTIN SCHNIEDER
Appeal2015-000313 1
Application 13/247,4292
Technology Center 3700
Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June
30, 2014), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 30, 2014), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 31, 2014) and Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Oct. 31, 2013).
2 Appellants identify "Alstom Technology Ltd." as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000313
Application 13/247,429
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed "invention relates to the field of gas turbines,
such as a cooled component for a gas turbine" (Spec. i-f 2).
Claims 1 and 9 are the only independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below with added bracketed matter, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A cooled component for a gas turbine, which comprises:
[a] a wall having an outer side which delimits a hot gas
passage of a gas turbine, and an inner side;
[b] a device for impingement cooling on the inner side,
wherein the impingement cooling device has a multiplicity of
separated impingement cooling chambers which are arranged
next to each other for operation in parallel and for impingement
upon by cooling air; and
[ c] impingement cooling plates which cover the
impingement cooling chambers and which are equipped with
impingement cooling holes,
[ d] wherein the impingement cooling chambers are
placed to communicate with hot gas passage via separate film
cooling holes which are respectively arranged in a corresponding
one of the separated impingement cooling chambers for
operation in parallel between the separated impingement cooling
chambers, and
[ e] wherein at least one of density, distribution,
diameter and flow cross section of the impingement cooling
holes in the impingement cooling plates of the individual
impingement cooling chambers is selected with respect to at least
one of thermal loading and static pressure which will occur
during operation on the outer side of the wall.
2
Appeal2015-000313
Application 13/247,429
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter that Appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brittingham (US 2008/0170946 Al, pub. July 17, 2008)
and Balkcum (US 6,471,480 Bl, iss. Oct. 29, 2002).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Brittingham, Balkcum, and Tiemann (US 2004/0001753 Al, pub. Jan. 1,
2004).
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (App. Br.
6-7), and, therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9 as
indefinite.
The Examiner finds that limitation [ e], as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in claim 9, is indefinite (Final Act. 4) because the
Specification "lacks a methodology for selecting a number, distribution,
diameter and/or flow cross section of cooling holes. [According to the
Examiner, t]here is no specific guidance, such as equations, relating each of
the parameters to the pressure and thermal difference" (Ans. 7). The
Examiner reasons:
For instance, for the parameter of density, there are no details
about the densities and how the selection of the density affects
the thermal loading and/or static pressure. Similarly, no details
about the specific distribution or diameters or flow cross sections
3
Appeal2015-000313
Application 13/247,429
Id.
of the impingement cooling holes and how these are selected
based on the specific thermal loading and/or static pressure. The
claim and specification does not clearly set forth what
impingement cooling holes arrangement are included by this
recitation, and specifically how a particular selection of density,
distribution, diameter or flow cross section results from a specific
operational thermal loading or static pressure occurring on the
outer side of the wall.
However, we agree with Appellants "that the Examiner is confusing
breadth with indefiniteness" and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand what is claimed when claims 1 and 9 are read in light of the
Specification, including, in particular, paragraphs 22-26. (App. Br. 7, citing
Spec. i-fi-122-26; see also Reply Br. 1-3); see Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (The test for
definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is "whether those
skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in
light of the specification.").
Here, the fact that the claims recite at least one of several parameters
of the impingement cooling holes is selected with respect to at least one of
thermal loading and static pressure during operation, does not, in and of
itself, result in a determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
understand the claim. Validity of a broad claim under the second paragraph
of§ 112, however, does not foreclose an inquiry into the specification from
the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art under the first paragraph of
§ 112.
4
Appeal2015-000313
Application 13/247,429
Obviousness
Independent claims 1and9 and dependent claims 2-7
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Appellants' argument
against the proposed modification cites to an embodiment in Figure 4 of
Brittingham (see App. Br. 8), which the Examiner did not rely upon in
rejecting the claims (see Final Act. 5, citing Brittingham Figures 7 and 8).
The Examiner points this out in the Answer (see Ans. 8 ("However, as set
forth in the rejection, the Examiner relies upon Figures 7-8, corresponding to
an embodiment with the chambers being separate."), but Appellants argue
against the combination by citing to Figure 4 of Brittingham in the Reply
Brief as well (see Reply Br. 4). As such, Appellants fail to address the
Examiner's actual findings in the rejection of record by distinctly pointing
out the Examiner's supposed errors. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims l and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants contend that the rejection of dependent claims 2--4 is not
supportable or disclosed by the cited prior art (see App. Br. 10). The
Examiner addresses Appellants' contentions with respect to claims 2--4 in
the Answer (Ans. 9-10), but Appellants have offered no substantive
arguments to rebut the specific underlying factual findings made by the
Examiner. And we decline to examine the claims sua sponte, looking for
distinctions over the prior art. Cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
3 8 8, 3 91 (Fed. Cir. 19 91) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art."). As such, we sustain the Examiner's
5
Appeal2015-000313
Application 13/247,429
rejection of dependent claims 2--4, and claims 5-7, which are not argued
separately.
Dependent claim 8
Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the
patentability of dependent claim 8, except to assert that Tiemann does not
cure the alleged deficiencies of Brittingham and Balkcum, and that claim 8
is patentable based on its dependence on claim 1 (App. Br. 10). Thus, we
are not persuaded for the reasons set forth above that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 8 for substantially the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner;s rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
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
6