Ex Parte Liang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2013

11543523 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

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