Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201612723880 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/723,880 03/15/2010 Ching-Pang Lee 2009P23241US 6260 28524 7590 12/30/2016 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER PRAGER, JESSE M Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHING-PANG LEE, MRINAL MUNSHI, GM S. AZAD, JAE Y. UM Appeal 2014-0068661 Application 12/723,8802 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, 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—5, 7, 8, 10-17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jan. 29, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 21, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 25, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Sept. 17, 2013). 2 Appellants identify “Siemens Energy, Inc.” as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2014-006866 Application 12/723,880 We REVERSE. CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to turbine engines, and, more particularly, to cooling passages provided in the sidewall of a component, such as the sidewall for an airfoil in a gas turbine engine.” Spec. 1,11. 4—6. Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of servicing an airfoil of a gas turbine engine comprising: building up a surface adjacent to a leading edge of the airfoil at an intersection between the airfoil and a platform associated with the airfoil by applying a high heat tolerant material to the surface; and forming at least one cooling passage at least partially within the built-up surface at the intersection between the airfoil and the platform, the at least one cooling passage in fluid communication with a main cooling channel within the airfoil, extending radially inwardly from the main cooling channel and having an outlet at a radially outer side of the platform for providing cooling fluid directly from the main cooling channel to the platform. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee ’530 (US 2008/0135530 Al, pub. June 12, 2008), Lee ’933 (US 7,249,933 B2, iss. July 31, 2007), and Liang (US 7,597,536 Bl, iss. Oct. 6, 2009). Claims 2—5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee ’530, Lee ’933, Liang, and Tam (US 2006/0140768 Al, pub. June 29, 2006). 2 Appeal 2014-006866 Application 12/723,880 Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee ’530, Lee ’933, Liang, Tam, and Fukue (EP 0 940,561 Al, pub. Sept. 8, 1999).3 Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee ’096 (US 7,217,096 B2, iss. May 15, 2007) and Liang. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee ’096, Liang, and Tam. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee ’096, Liang, Tam, and Fukue. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee ’096, Liang, and Fukue. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Lee ’933 and Liang do not disclose or suggest forming at least one cooling passage at least partially within the built-up surface at the intersection between the airfoil and the platform, the at least one cooling passage in fluid communication with a main cooling channel within the airfoil, extending radially inwardly from the main cooling channel and having an outlet at a radially outer side of the platform for providing cooling fluid directly from the main cooling channel to the platform[,] as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—9; see also Reply Br. 2—7. 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 13. 3 Appeal 2014-006866 Application 12/723,880 Lee ’933 relates generally to turbines within gas turbine engines. Lee ’933, col. 1,11. 5—6. Lee ’933 describes airfoils 14 connected at a root end to platform 16. Id. col. 1,11. 13—16. “[E]ach platform 16 is . . . joined to the root end of each airfoil at a relatively large arcuate fillet 38 . . . configured to change the contour of platform 16 to improve aerodynamic efficiency.” Id. col. 4,11. 14—18. A pattern of “a plurality of film cooling holes 40 extend[s] through the platform . . . along the fillet 38 for discharging film cooling air 30 along the fillet during operation” and “to reduce the adverse effects of horseshoe vortices.” Id. col. 4,11. 26—32, col. 6,11. 43^49. Some platform holes 40 “are . . . joined in flow communication with [an] internal cooling circuit 28.” Id. Fig. 2, col. 6, 11. 50—53. Some platform holes 40 extend through fillet 38 so that “their outlets are disposed in the arcuate curvature of the fillet and discharge the spent cooling air downwardly along the fillet.” Id. Fig. 2, col. 6,11. 58—62. Other platform holes 40 “extend radially through platform 16” and “receive cavity or purge air 30 conventionally channeled in this region.” Id. col. 6, 1. 63-col. 7,1. 2. The Examiner finds that Fee ’933 describes a cooling passage 40 that: (1) is formed “at least partially within a built up surface (38),” (2) is “in fluid communication with a main cooling channel,” and (3) has “an outlet at a radially outer side of the platform for providing cooling fluid [] from the main cooling channel to . . . the platform.” Final Act. 3 (citing Fee ’933, Fig. 2). But we agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4—5) that the holes 40 that are in fluid communication with the cooling circuit are disposed in the arcuate curvature of the fillet for cooling the fillet, not at a radially outer side of the platform for providing cooling fluid to the platform, as required by claim 1. See Fee ’933, Fig. 2, col. 6,11. 58—62. 4 Appeal 2014-006866 Application 12/723,880 Moreover, holes 40 that extend radially through platform 16 are not in communication with the internal cooling circuit, as required by claim 1. See id. Fig. 2, col. 6,1. 63—col. 7,1. 2. The Examiner implicitly acknowledges that Lee ’933 does not disclose the claimed at least one cooling passage that extends radially inwardly from the main cooling channel, by relying on Liang to cure the deficiency. See Final Act. 3^4. Liang “relates to airfoils used in a gas turbine airfoil.” Liang, col. 1,11. 17—19. A blade includes a root 10, a cooling fluid passage 12, a platform 14, and an airfoil 18. Id. col. 1,11. 38— 40, Fig. 2. “A fillet region 16 is formed between the airfoil and the platform.” Id. col. 1,11. 40-41. Holes 17 are drilled along a lower section of the blade for cooling fillet region 16. Id. col. 1,11. 44-48. In particular, Liang describes that a line of holes 17 is located along a lower section of the blade. Id. col. 1,11. 46—51. The Examiner takes the position that Liang discloses cooling holes 17 extending inwardly at the fillet region and having an outlet at a radially outer side of the platform. Final Act. 3 (citing Liang col. 1,11. 44^46, Figs. 1, 2). But we agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3) that Liang’s holes 17 are located above the fillet region, and are not formed substantially within the built-up surface and, like holes 40 described in Lee ’933, do not have an outlet at a radially outer side of the platform. See Liang, Fig. 2, col. 1,11. 44—51. Based on our review of the record, the Examiner does not adequately explain how, and we fail to see how, the combination of Lee ’933 and Liang discloses or suggests forming at least one cooling passage at least partially within the built-up surface at the intersection between the airfoil 5 Appeal 2014-006866 Application 12/723,880 and the platform, the at least one cooling passage in fluid communication with a main cooling channel within the airfoil, extending radially inwardly from the main cooling channel and having an outlet at a radially outer side of the platform for providing cooling fluid directly from the main cooling channel to the platform[,] as called for in claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 13, which recites similar language and is rejected based on the same erroneous findings set forth above with respect to claim 1. Further, we do not sustain any of the obviousness rejections of claims 2—5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14—17, 19, and 20 that depend from the independent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation