Ex Parte Norris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2013

12502727 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES W. NORRIS and JAMES D. HILL
____________________

Appeal 2012-001703
Application 12/502,727
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001703
Application 12/502,727
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James W. Norris and James D. Hill appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 10-14, 16, 18, and 19. Claims 1 and 4-9 are
allowed. Claims 15, 20, and 21 are objected to as being dependent on a
rejected claim. Claims 2, 3, and 17 are canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and designate our affirmance as A NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a hybrid vapor and film cooled turbine
engine component. Independent claims 10 and 16 are reproduced below:
10. A hybrid cooling system for cooling a gas turbine
engine component having an airfoil portion and a root portion,
the system comprising:
a first cooling subsystem for cooling a region at or near a
leading edge of the airfoil portion, wherein the first cooling
subsystem utilizes vapor cooling; and
a second cooling subsystem for cooling a region at or
near a trailing edge of the airfoil portion, wherein the second
cooling subsystem utilizes film cooling.
16. An improvement for a vapor cooled gas turbine
engine component having a leading edge and a trailing edge,
and further having a condenser section and a vaporization
section, the improvement comprising:
Appeal 2012-001703
Application 12/502,727
3
an auxiliary cooling system for cooling a region at or
near the trailing edge of the gas turbine engine component
using film cooling, wherein at least a portion of a fluid used to
cool the condenser section is discharged out of a plurality of
openings of the auxiliary cooling subsystem, such that the fluid
used for film cooling includes thermal energy transferred from
the condenser section.

PRIOR ART
Hough
Cunha
US 5,201,634
US 5,634,766
Apr. 13, 1993
Jun. 3, 1997

GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 10-14, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hough and Cunha.

OPINION
Claims 16, 18 and 19
The Examiner finds that Hough discloses every element of claim 16
except for:
an auxiliary cooling system for cooling a region at or near the
trailing edge of the gas turbine engine component using film
cooling wherein at least a portion of a fluid used to cool the
condenser section is discharged out of a plurality of openings of
the auxiliary cooling subsystem, such that the fluid used for
film cooling includes thermal energy transferred from the
condenser section.
Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds that Cunha teaches:
Appeal 2012-001703
Application 12/502,727
4
an auxiliary cooling system for cooling a region at or near the
trailing edge of the gas turbine engine component using film
cooling wherein at least a portion of a fluid used to cool the
condenser section is discharged out of a plurality of openings of
the auxiliary cooling subsystem (col. 12, ll. 42-45), such that
the fluid used for film cooling includes thermal energy
transferred from the condenser section wherein a section of the
vapor cooled gas turbine engine component is separated from
the auxiliary cooling system by an internal wall (W, see Figure
4 as reproduced and annotated by the examiner below) and a
flow deflector (passages 176) for redirecting a fluid used to cool
a portion of a vapor cooling system of the vapor cooled gas
turbine engine component to the auxiliary cooling subsystem.
If modified by Cunha a portion of the air that passes into the
film cooling system would pass over the condenser section and
absorb the thermal heat.
Id. (emphasis added). Based on these findings the Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious “to modify the blade of Hough by constructing it
with the trailing edge film cooling apparatus, wall and deflector of Cunha for
the purpose of film cooling the trailing edge with air.” Ans. 7-8 (emphasis
added).
As an initial matter we note that the Examiner has not identified nor
do we discern any evidence in support of the finding that Cunha describes a
system wherein “at least a portion of a fluid used to cool the condenser
section is discharged . . . such that the fluid used for film cooling includes
thermal energy transferred from the condenser section.” Ans. 7.
Accordingly, this finding is in error and Appellants’ argument that “[t]he air
used for film cooling by Cunha et al. has not absorbed any thermal energy
from a condenser of a vapor cycle system, or even from the disclosed steam
cooling circuit” (App. Br. 17) is persuasive.
Further, the Examiner’s conclusory statement that “[i]f modified by
Cunha a portion of the air that passes into the film cooling system would
Appeal 2012-001703
Application 12/502,727
5
pass over the condenser section and absorb the thermal heat” (Ans. 7) is
unsupported by evidence or persuasive reasoning.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
16, and claims 18 and 19 which depend therefrom.
Claim 10
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10 over the combined
teachings of Hough and Cunha is similar to the rejection of independent
claim 16 discussed supra. The Examiner similarly finds that Cunha teaches:
A second cooling subsystem for cooling a region at or near a
trailing edge of the airfoil portion, wherein the second cooling
subsystem utilizes film cooling (col. 12, ll. 43-45) wherein the
fluid directed at the root portion to cool the condenser section is
subsequently directed (passage 176) through the second cooling
subsystem. The passage would connect to the already existing
condenser cooling fluid and redirect a portion to the trailing
edge.
Ans. 5.
The Examiner appears to have misconstrued the claim, as claim 10
does not require film cooling “wherein the fluid directed at the root portion
to cool the condenser section is subsequently directed through the second
cooling subsystem.” Id. Rather, claim 10 encompasses a hybrid cooling
system comprising two self-contained subsystems. Thus, the Examiner
interpreted the claim too narrowly by incorporating limitations which have
no express basis in the claim. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05
(CCPA 1969). Obvious must be judged in light of the objective reach of the
claim. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). Claim 10 does not
require the modification proposed by the Examiner. Upon review of the
prior art relied upon to reject claim 10, we find that Cunha anticipates claim
10.
Appeal 2012-001703
Application 12/502,727
6
Specifically, Cunha describes each and every limitation of claim 10 as
follows with reference to Cunha’s Figure 4:
1. Cunha describes a hybrid cooling system (Abstract) for cooling a
gas turbine engine component S.
2. Cunha’s gas turbine engine component S has an airfoil portion 54
and a root portion 73.
3. Cunha’s system includes a first cooling subsystem (col. 10, ll. 17-
34) for cooling a region at or near a leading edge 78 of the airfoil
portion 54.
4. Cunha’s first cooling subsystem utilizes vapor (steam) cooling
(col. 10, ll. 31-34).
5. Cunha’s system includes a second cooling subsystem (col. 12, ll.
1-2) for cooling a region at or near a trailing edge 80 of the airfoil
portion 54.
6. In column12, lines 35-37 Cunha states that the second cooling
subsystem utilizes air film cooling flow along the opposite side
walls of the vane adjacent the trailing edge.
Given that a disclosure that anticipates a claim under § 102 also
renders the claim unpatentable under § 103, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 10. See Connell v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co., 722 F.2d
1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792
(CCPA 1982)) (for ‘anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.’). As our
conclusion is based on findings of fact and reasoning that differs from
that articulated by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new
ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellants
with a full and fair opportunity to respond to the rejection.
Appeal 2012-001703
Application 12/502,727
7
Claims 11-14
Appellants argue that “[i]n contrast to having a condenser within a
root, Hough explicitly teaches that heat exchanger 20 is “provided within the
shank portion l3.” App. Br. 12 (citing Hough, col. 3, 11. 8-10; FIGS. 1 and
3); see also Reply Br. 3. In support of this contention, Appellants explain
that:
Hough distinguishes the shank from the root, and explicitly
teaches away from the condenser being located in the root
portion 12. Although it is acknowledged that usage of the term
“root” sometimes is used very broadly, it is also well accepted
in the relevant technical field to distinguish a “shank” from a
more radially inward “root” that has a dovetail, fir tree, or other
shape for retention purposes. (Cf. FIG. 1 of the present
application).
Id. In response to this argument, the Examiner notes that “Appellant states
that the term root is broad and then argues that the root (12) and shank (13)
are separate due to the ‘well accepted’ definition of shank in the art and the
fact that a root has a fir tree section.” Ans. 11. The Examiner further notes
that “Appellant has provided no documentation of this definition of shank.”
Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants proffer U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,846,054 and
6,932,570 as evidence that both “shank” and “dovetail” or “dovetail root” in
a manner consistent with Appellants’ usage. We note that this use is also
consistent with Hough. As the Examiner has not provided evidence to the
contrary, Appellants’ argument is persuasive. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d
1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Prior art references may be ‘indicative of
what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ...
[and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those
skilled in the art.’ Accordingly, the PTO's interpretation of claim terms
Appeal 2012-001703
Application 12/502,727
8
should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical
terms in other patents from analogous art.” Id. (Citations omitted).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11,
and claims 12-14 which depend therefrom.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 is AFFIRMED and designated
as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-14, 16, 18, and 19 is
REVERSED.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the Examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

Appeal 2012-001703
Application 12/502,727
9
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
tkl