Ex Parte LiangDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201311543523 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013) 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. 11/543,523 10/05/2006 George Liang 2006P19291US 6772 28524 7590 05/17/2013 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH ISELIN, NJ 08830 EXAMINER ELLIS, RYAN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/17/2013 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 GEORGE LIANG ____________________ Appeal 2011-001716 Application 11/543,523 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001716 Application 11/543,523 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a turbine airfoil cooling system with an enhanced tip corner cooling channel. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A turbine airfoil, comprising: a generally elongated, hollow airfoil having a leading edge, a trailing edge, a tip section at a first end, a root coupled to the airfoil at an end generally opposite to the first end for supporting the airfoil and for coupling the airfoil to a disc, and a cooling system formed from at least one cavity in the elongated, hollow airfoil; the cooling system comprising a serpentine cooling channel positioned in a mid-chord region of the generally elongated airfoil and being formed from a first leg, a second leg, a third leg, a fourth leg, and a fifth leg; wherein the first, fourth and fifth legs are generally aligned with each other and extend in a generally spanwise direction; wherein the second and third legs are generally aligned with each other and extend in a generally chordwise direction proximate to an intersection between the trailing edge and the tip section of the generally elongated, hollow airfoil; and a trailing edge turn between the second and third legs including a trailing edge exhaust orifice in the trailing edge. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hoff Lee US 5,462,405 US 6,832,889 Oct. 31, 1995 Dec. 21, 2004 Appeal 2011-001716 Application 11/543,523 3 Levine Papple US 2005/0265844 A1 US 2007/0071601 A1 Dec. 1, 2005 Mar. 29, 2007 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoff and Lee. Ans. 3. Claims 2, 3, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoff, Lee and Papple. Ans. 9. Claims 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoff, Lee and Levine. Ans. 11. OPINION The claims rejected as unpatentable over Hoff and Lee are argued as a group and we select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The other claims are argued solely based upon dependency. App. Br. 24-25. The Examiner correctly found that Hoff discloses the claimed invention, with the only difference being that the end of Hoff’s rib 78 proximate tip region 32 does not extend in a generally chordwise direction to create two chordwise cooling channels into tip passage 74. Cf. Hoff fig. 1 with Application fig. 2 (reference numerals 46, 48, 58). The Examiner concluded, in light of Lee, that such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Based on the totality of the evidence and arguments before us, we agree with the Examiner. As evidence that the proposed modification to Hoff would have been obvious, the Examiner points to Lee’s serpentine channel 62, or more specifically, the wall extending from bridge 44 toward the tip and trailing Appeal 2011-001716 Application 11/543,523 4 edges of the blade that partially defines that channel 62.1 The benefits, and therefore the reasons, for including such a structure are readily apparent in Lee: It encourages cooling of the outer span of the airfoil to prevent overheating from radial migration of the combustion gases and it increases the structural stiffness of the airfoil tip region. Lee col. 6, ll. 7-13, 20-25. Appellant’s argument that Hoff teaches away from such an arrangement simply by not disclosing it (App. Br. 22) is not well-founded. Merely disclosing an alternative, without more, cannot be said to teach away from all other configurations. See, e.g., In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant next argues that one skilled in the art would not consider Lee’s wall W to define cooling channels or “legs” that extend “generally chordwise.” App. Br. 22-23. First, we disagree with Appellant’s proposed construction of the term “generally chordwise.” The term “generally” allows for some variability in the thing described thereafter. Such terms (see, e.g., MPEP § 2173.05(b)(II)) typically add breadth to the scope of the claim. Appellant has not apprised us of anything in the claim or the rest of the Specification to demonstrate that one skilled in the art would understand “generally chordwise” to exclude channels extending chordally at a 45o angle across the blade, when that term is read in light of the Specification. Further, even if one skilled in the art would understand “generally chordwise” to exclude the specific structure of Lee, Appellant does not apprise us of any reason why one skilled in the art would understand Lee’s teachings to be confined to the exact dimensions depicted in Lee’s figures. Obviousness is judged in view of the combined teachings of the references, 1 Hereinafter we will refer to this wall as wall W, as the Examiner did. Ans. 14. Appeal 2011-001716 Application 11/543,523 5 not their specific structures. In re Wood, 599 F. 2d 1032, 1037 (CCPA 1979). It has long been understood that the invention is not confined to the particular form or mode described. Winans v. Denmead, 56 U.S. 330 (1854). Appellant’s argument on page 23 of the Brief concerning the enumerated passes (presumably referencing the recited “leg[s]”) is unclear. Appellant appears to rely on the recitations not appearing in the claim and benefits of the preferred embodiment disclosed in Appellant’s Specification. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). The mere fact, if it be a fact, that the turbine blade of Appellant’s preferred embodiment performs better than that of either Hoff or Lee, does not necessarily imply invention. In re Hodgson, 96 F.2d 285, 287 (CCPA 1938). Lastly, Appellant makes a general allegation that the Examiner relied on hindsight to reconstruct the claimed subject matter. App. Br. 23-24. Appellant’s argument is not supported by any showing of what knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s Specification the Examiner needed to rely on to reconstruct the claimed subject matter. To the contrary, Lee suggests the applicability of generally chordwise channels to blades having trailing edge orifices. See, e.g., Lee fig. 5 at 76. Thus, Appellant has not apprised us of any hindsight bias by the Examiner. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2011-001716 Application 11/543,523 6 AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation