Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2016

12832116 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/832,116 07/08/2010
28524 7590 10/28/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ching-Pang Lee
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.
2010P07273US 3808
EXAMINER
AMICK, JACOB M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2016 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
Exparte CHING-PANG LEE, DANNING YOU,
REINHARD SCHILP, and CHANDER PRAKASH
Appeal2014-009585
Application 12/832,116
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ching-Pang Lee et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-009585
Application 12/832, 116
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A damping resonator comprising:
a resonance chamber formed by an outer wall with coolant
inlet holes, an inner wall with acoustic holes, and side walls
spanning between the inner and outer walls;
a depression in the outer wall comprising a bottom portion
that is closer to the inner wall than is a first peak portion of the
outer wall;
the coolant inlet holes distributed along the bottom portion
of the depression;
wherein the coolant inlet holes are close enough to the
inner wall for effective impingement cooling thereof, and are
located to direct coolant flows toward impingement locations on
the inner wall apart from the acoustic holes;
wherein the first peak portion of the outer wall is disposed
at a first distance from the inner wall, and the bottom portion of
the depression is disposed at a second distance from the inner
wall that is less than 60% of the first distance.
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mandai (US 2004/0060295 Al, pub. Apr. 1, 2004), with further
reference to Ikeda (US 7,089,741 B2, iss. Aug. 15, 2006), Auxier (US
4,773,593, iss. Sept. 27, 1988), Johnson (US 2011/0138812 Al, pub. June
16, 2011) (hereinafter "Johnson '812"), Jablonka (US 4,555,433, iss. Nov.
26, 1985), and Johnson (US 2011/0179795 Al, pub. July 28, 2011)
(hereinafter "Johnson '795"). 1
1 The Examiner's rejection states that it is based on Mandai "alone." Final
Act. 5. However, in the detailed explanation of the rejection, the Examiner
2
Appeal2014-009585
Application 12/832, 116
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Mandai discloses a damping resonator
including, in relevant part, "a depression in the outer wall comprising a
bottom portion that is closer to the inner wall than is a first peak portion of
the outer wall." Final Act. 6 (citing Mandai, Fig. 6B, para. 30). The
Examiner acknowledges that "Mandai does not positively disclose coolant
inlet holes distributed along the bottom portion of the depression." Id.
Nevertheless, the Examiner determines:
[A ]s the purpose of the cooling holes of Mandai is to provide
cooling to the inner wall surface (Paragraph 0027), it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to configure the resonator of Mandai such
that the inner wall surface received sufficient cooling at all
locations (including those portions located beneath said
depression or near the walls) by arranging cooling holes as
appropriate (by distributing said holes in said depression ... ).
Id. at 7. The Examiner also finds that Ikeda and Auxier provide evidence
that "it is known in the art to configure ... damping resonators with various
cooling hole arrangements," and that Ikeda discloses "cooling holes 22 ...
provided in depressed surface 18." Id. (citing Ikeda, Figs. 3, 6A-6C).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's articulated reason for the
proposed modification of Mandai lacks rational underpinnings because "the
folds of the bellows of Mandai are not suitable for ... cooling holes," and
"[b ]ecause it would be irrational to modify a device to achieve an objective
when that objective is already achieved in the device." Appeal Br. 4. For
refers to Ikeda, Auxier, Johnson '812, Jablonka, and Johnson '795. Id. at 7,
8, 9.
3
Appeal2014-009585
Application 12/832, 116
the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
proposed modification lacks rational underpinnings.
Mandai discloses a damping resonator having a depression in the
outer wall in the form of "a bellows portion[] for reducing thermal stress."
Mandai, para. 29. With reference to Figure 6B, Mandai discloses that "liner
segment 346 has a lateral bellows portion 346c[] provided in the peripheral
wall portion 346b" that "allows the liner segment 346 to deform in the
direction of arrow 'a' and parallel to the side wall of the combustor tail tube
12." Id., para. 30. In this regard, Appellants correctly observe that Mandai's
"folds (246c, 346c) are for thermal expansion and contraction ... , so they
flex during thermal cycles." Appeal Br. 4. As a result, placing
"[i]mpingement holes along the bottom of such folds would form a
perforation line coincident with the flex line" of bellows portion 346c and
would present an increased potential for "structural fatigue weakness along
the line." Id. at 4--5. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been prompted to modify Mandai' s damping resonator to include
cooling holes along the bottom of the bellows portion as proposed by the
Examiner.
Mandai does not specifically disclose air cooling orifices in liner
segment 346 of the embodiment of Figure 6B. See Mandai, paras. 29-30;
Fig. 6B. However, in the embodiment of Figure 4, Mandai does disclose air
cooling orifices 24a in the peripheral wall portion of acoustic liner 24, which
is like liner segment 346, except that it is not provided with a lateral bellows
portion. See id., Fig. 4; para. 27. In discussing the embodiment of Figure 4,
Mandai discloses that "[t]he ... disposition of air cooling orifices 24a
allows the air to flow into the acoustic buffer 25 ... as impingement[] jet[ s]
4
Appeal2014-009585
Application 12/832, 116
relative to the wall of the combustor tail tube 12 and to ej)ectively cool the
wall portions between the adjoining orifices 12b of the combustor tail tube
12." Id., para. 27 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellants that
Mandai's disclosure regarding cooling orifices evidences that "Mandai is
clearly aware of the need for sufficient cooling." Appeal Br. 4. Thus, a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood from this
disclosure that cooling orifices in the peripheral wall portion of Mandai' s
liner segments are effective in sufficiently cooling the wall portions of the
combustor tail tube. The Examiner does not explain, nor do we discern, a
reason why modifying Mandai's bellows portion 346c to include cooling
holes would be necessary in order for the inner wall surface to "receive[]
sufficient cooling," as the Examiner states. See Final Act. 7.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to articulate adequate
reasoning supported by rational underpinnings as to why a person of
ordinary in the art would have been prompted to modify the damping
resonator of Mandai to include cooling holes at the bottom of the bellows
portion. The Examiner does not rely on Ikeda, Auxier, Johnson '812,
Jablonka, or Johnson '795 for any teaching, nor articulate any additional
findings or reasoning, that would rernedy the aforementioned deficiency in
the proposed modification to rv1andai. 2 Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2 To the extent that Ikeda and Auxier provide evidence that "it is known in
the art to configure ... damping resonators with various cooling hole
arrangements," or that Ikeda discloses "cooling holes 22 ... provided in
depressed surface 18" (Final Act. 7), such evidence alone is not sufficient to
establish a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
prompted to arrange cooling holes along the bottom of Mandai's bellows
portion as proposed by the Examiner.
5
Appeal2014-009585
Application 12/832, 116
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6