Ex Parte Lewis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201813584172 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018) 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. 13/584,172 08/13/2012 Scott D. Lewis 61758US01;67097-1957PUS1 1055 54549 7590 02/01/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER EDGAR, RICHARD A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2018 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 SCOTT D. LEWIS and GARY A. ZESS Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, 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’ decision2 rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 United Technologies Corporation is identified by Appellants as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated May 16, 2016. Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An airfoil for a gas turbine engine comprising: pressure and suction surfaces provided by pressure and suction walls extending in a radial direction and joined at a leading edge and a trailing edge; a cooling passage arranged between the pressure and suction walls and extending to the trailing edge; elongated pedestals arranged in the cooling passage and interconnecting the pressure and suction walls, the elongated pedestals spaced apart from one another in the radial direction and extending from a plane to the trialing edge; a metering pedestal interconnecting the pressure and suction walls, the metering pedestal including at least a portion arranged between the plane and the trailing edge, the portion provided between adjacent elongated pedestals in the a radial direction; and a thermal barrier coating in the trailing edge exit3 downstream from the metering pedestal without reaching the metering pedestal. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee (US 7,575,414 B2; issued Aug. 18, 2009) 3 The claim term “the trailing edge exit” lacks antecedent basis. Cf. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App’x) (claim 9: “a trailing edge exit is provided . . . .”). 2 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 and Dopper (US 6,382,920 Bl; issued May 7, 2002), as evidenced by Kaya (US 2010/0255200 Al; published Oct. 7, 2010). Final Act. 2, 6. II. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee, Dopper, as evidenced by Kaya, and North (US 4,515,523; issued May 7, 1985). Final Act. 5. ANALYSIS Rejection I Independent claims 1 and 18, and dependent claims 2, 5—7, 11, 13—17, 19 22 Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 18 as a group. Appeal Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 1-2. We select claim 1 as representative, with claim 18 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Lee teaches a cooling passage arranged between pressure and suction walls, and also elongated pedestals (i.e., lands 134) and metering pedestals (trailing edge dividers 136), as claimed. Final Act. 3 (citing Lee, Fig. 3); see also Lee 3:65; 4:7-8. The Examiner also finds that Lee discloses a trailing edge exit, as claimed, which “exists between the trailing edge 150 [(of suction sidewall 120)] and the breakout openings 144.” Ans. 3^1 (referencing Lee, Fig. 3). Figure 3 of Lee is reproduced below. 3 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 FIG "5 Figure 3 of Lee is a cross-sectional view of a portion of a turbine nozzle vane. Lee 2:29-30. The Examiner determines that Lee does not disclose a thermal barrier coating (TBC) in the trailing edge exit, as claimed. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Dopper for teaching “a trailing edge cooled turbine blade having a TBC applied in the trailing edge exit... for the purpose of thermally insulating the trailing edge exit.” Id. (citing Dopper, Fig. 2). The Examiner reasons that [bjecause Lee is a trailing edge cooled turbine blade, and Dopper [teaches adding] a TBC around the blade including the trailing edge exit for insulating the blade, it would have been obvious . . . to modify the Lee blade to have a TBC applied thereon, as 4 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 expressed in Dopper for the purpose of insulating the blade, including the trailing edge exit. Id. The Examiner finds that Dopper teaches using an electron beam physical vapor deposition (EB-PVD) process for applying the TBC (citing Dopper 5:1—4) and relies on Kaya as evidence that it is well-known that the EB-PVD process provides “appropriate control” to keep “cooling air outlet openings [on the trailing edge side] . . . free of coating material during the coating process” (citing Kaya ^ 6). Id. In other words, the Examiner relies on Kaya for teaching that the EB-PVD process is capable of applying a TBC coating to Lee’s trailing edge exit, as taught by Dopper, downstream of the metering pedestal (i.e., Lee’s dividers 136) without reaching the metering pedestals (i.e., Lee’s dividers 136), as claimed, while keeping Lee’s trailing edge slots 142 free of coating material during the coating process. First, Appellants argue that the Examiner “appears to miss that Appellant’s claims recite a TBC in the trailing edge exit.” Appeal Br. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument, which does not address the Examiner’s finding with respect to Lee’s “trailing edge exit,” or the Examiner’s reasoning that adding a TBC, as taught by Dopper and Kaya, results in a TBC in Lee’s trailing edge exit, as claimed. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that the claimed “trailing edge exit” reads on Lee’s exposed suction sidewall 120 between the trailing edge 150 of suction sidewall 120 and breakout openings 144 (at the trailing edge of pressure sidewall 118), which is downstream of (and adjacent to) Lee’s breakout opening 144 between the pressure and suction sidewalls, and which 5 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 comprises discrete, U-shaped passages, defined by the exposed suction sidewall 120 between trailing edge 150 and breakout opening 144, and lands 134. See Lee, Fig. 3. Consistent with the Specification, Lee’s trailing edge exit, as determined by the Examiner, is provided between the elongated pedestals (i.e., Lee’s lands 134) in the radial direction at the trailing edge. See Lee, Fig. 3; cf. Spec. ^ 12 (“a trailing edge exit is provided between the elongated pedestals in the radial direction at the trailing edge”); id. 21 (“elongated pedestals are spaced apart from one another in the radial direction to provide a trailing edge exit”). Thus, the Examiner’s proposed modification results in TBC in Lee’s discrete, U-shaped passages, defined by the exposed suction sidewall 120 between trailing edge 150 and breakout opening 144, and lands 134. Second, Appellants argue that “Dopper and Kaya cannot be interpreted as showing a TBC in the trailing edge exit.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 1 (“both Dopper and Kaya teach the use of an electron beam physical vapor deposition process and the desire that no coating material [is deposited] within the trailing edge passages”) (emphasis added)); cf. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App’x) (claim 1: “a thermal barrier coating in the trailing edge exit”) (emphasis added)). Although Dopper and Kaya do not depict TBC on the entirety of the surfaces in contact with exiting cooling air, Dopper and Kaya both depict TBC on at least on portion of a sidewall exposed to the exhausted cooling air. See Dopper 2 and Kaya, Fig. 2. Notably, Lee is relied on for disclosing the structure of the claimed trailing edge exit, as set forth supra. Both 6 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 Dopper and Kaya disclose the desirability of applying a TBC at a trailing edge, and the Examiner is applying a TBC, as taught in Dopper and Kaya, to Lee’s trailing edge exit, as determined by the Examiner supra. Thus, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Third, Appellants submit that “a skilled worker would understand 1) getting TBC in the trailing edge exit is undesirable, and 2) the use of EB- PVD is a [sic] precise enough to avoid getting TBC in the trailing edge exit.” Appeal Br. 6. Thus, Appellants conclude that “Dopper when properly read together with Kaya would not cause a skilled worker to modify Lee to include “a thermal barrier coating in the trailing exit downstream from the metering pedestal without reaching the metering pedestal,” as claimed, but rather, “teaches away from such a result.” Id. We do not agree with Appellants’ contention that Dopper and Kaya broadly teach one skilled in the art that getting TBC in the trailing edge exit is undesirable. Rather, Kaya very specifically teaches that “it is necessary for the cooling air outlet openings [on the trailing edge side] to be kept free of coating material during the coating process.” Kaya ^ 6; see also id. ^ 22 (“In order to avoid adversely affecting the effectiveness of the cooling air outlet from the cooling air outlet openings 14 on the trailing edge side, it is necessary to avoid coating material from entering the cooling outlet openings 14 during the coating process.”). Because the Examiner’s modification does not involve coating Lee’s trailing edge slots 138 or breakout openings 144, we are not persuaded that Kaya teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed modification to apply a TBC coating to Lee’s 7 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 trailing edge exit, as determined by the Examiner. Appellants’ argument also does not address the Examiner’s reasoning that one skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Lee as proposed by the Examiner for the purpose of insulating the blade, including the trailing edge exit, as set forth supra. Notably, Dopper and Kaya specifically recommend applying TBC at the trailing edge to protect against hot aggressive gas. See Dopper (1:16-20, Fig. 2 (trailing edge 8)); Kaya]| 7 (explaining that Kaya’s invention produces turbine blades “which on the one hand avoids coating the cooling air outlet openings, but on the other hand allows coating to a point close to the cooling air outlet openings.”). Additionally, Appellants’ contention that the use of EB-PVD is precise enough to avoid getting TBC in the trailing edge exit, supra, supports the Examiner’s reasoning that the EB-PVD process is controllable to apply TBC in Lee’s trailing edge exit, as determined by the Examiner, downstream from and without reaching Lee’s metering pedestals (i.e., dividers 136). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Dopper, as evidenced by Kaya. Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 2, 5-7, 11, 13-17, 19-22, which depend from claims 1 and 18; therefore, for the reasons stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 11, 13-17, 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Dopper, as evidenced by Kaya. Appeal Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-2. 8 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 Dependent claims 8—10 Claims 8-10 depend from claim 1 and recite: “wherein the elongated pedestals are spaced apart from one another between 0.045 inch (1.14 m) and 0.075 inch (1.91 mm) in the radial direction” (claim 8); “wherein a trailing edge exit is provided between the elongated pedestals in the radial direction of the trailing edge, the trailing edge exit having an uncoated width of between 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) and 0.060 inch (1.52 mm)” (claim 9); and “wherein a trailing edge exit is provided between the elongated pedestals in the radial direction at the trailing edge, the trailing edge exit having an uncoated height of between 0.010 inch (0.25 mm) and 0.016 inch (0.41 mm)” (claim 10). Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds that “[t]he prior art does not appear to quantify the dimensions of: the pitch of the elongated pedestals” in the ranges set forth in claims 8-10. Final Act. 6. However, the Examiner determines that turbine blades are manufactured in different sizes for particular engines, and each trailing edge has a specific performance associated therewith; thus each blade trailing edge design is a result effective variable. Accordingly, artisans have many options when choosing the dimensions for turbine blade trailing edge exit slots and pedestals spacing. A desired or optimized result of the cooling requirements of the turbine blade would assist in choosing the appropriate exit area and pedestal spacing. Id. at 7 (emphasis added). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to choose [the claimed ranges] for the purpose of optimizing the performance of the turbine blade cooling effectiveness.” Id. 9 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 Appellants argue that “nowhere in the prior art [have the claimed dimensions] been looked at,” and thus, the Examiner has not met the burden of showing “that the parameter to be optimized is recognized as a result- effective variable.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977). Appellants submit that “the Examiner’s explanation of the claimed relationship is insufficient [as objective evidence] to meet this burden.” Id. (citing In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner responds that Appellants have “failed to show the criticality of the claimed ranges.” Ans. 4 (citing Spec. ^ 54 for failing to discuss “any advantage, purpose, or problem solved through the use of the claimed ranges”). The Examiner also determines that “Lee already shows the relative arrangement of the features of claims 8, 9, and 10, just not the claimed ranges,” and “because there is not criticality or unexpected results ... of the claimed range,... the ranges are obvious, as turbine blades are manufactured to different sizes for different engines.” Id. at 5. Appellants reply that “[cjriticality is necessary only to rebut aprima facie case of obviousness,” and that “[t]he Examiner has not met this prima facie case of obviousness,. . . because the Examiner has not first established that [the] claimed ranges are result-effective variable in the prior art.” Reply Br. 2. In In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955), the court set forth the rule that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Exceptions to this general rule include where the parameter 10 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 optimized was not recognized i n the art to be a result-effective variable and where the results of opti mizing a variable, which was known to be result effective, were unexpectedly good. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 621 (CCPA 1977), and In re Wciymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 1276 (CCPA 1974). Regarding the range recited in claim 8 for the radial spacing between elongated pedestals, Lee discloses that [a]s the cooling air flows out the trailing edge slots 138, the tapered lands 134 encourage diffusion of the flow and promote attachment of a cooling film. The tapered lands 134 as well as the reduction in the number of lands compared to prior art airfoils also reduces that hot land surface area compared to prior art trailing edge lands, further encouraging the exit film to spread wider and improve film coverage. Lee 5:4-11. Although Lee recognizes a tapering of the lands, and even a reduction in the number of lands, we determine that the Examiner has not established that Lee expressly recognizes that the radial spacing between lands is a result-effective variable affecting resultant cooling and film coverage. Regarding claims 9 and 10, the Examiner has similarly failed to establish that the uncoated width and height of coating within a passage, such as the claimed trailing edge exit, is a result-effective variable. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8- 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Dopper, as evidenced by Kaya. 11 Appeal 2017-004460 Application 13/584,172 Rejection II Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 3 and 4, which depend from independent claim 1; therefore, for the reasons stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Dopper, as evidenced by Kaya, and North. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,2, 5-7, 11, and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Dopper, as evidenced by Kaya is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Dopper, as evidenced by Kaya is REVERSED. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee, Dopper, as evidenced by Kaya, and North 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation