Ex Parte QUACH et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2019

14759761 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/759,761 07/08/2015 San QUACH
54549 7590 05/15/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
67097-2355PUS 1 ;64740US01 1892
EXAMINER
BREAZEAL, WILLIAM LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2019 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 SAN QUACH and THOMAS N. SLAVENS
Appeal2018-006806
Application 14/759,761 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-23.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
According to Appellants, the invention "relates to a gas turbine
engine, and[,] more particularly[,] to a component that includes an
1 According to Appellants, "United Technologies Corporation is the real
party in interest." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006806
Application 14/759,761
impingement aperture that can be angled relative to a radial axis of a rib of
the component." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 13, and 17 are the independent claims
on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed
claims.
1. A component for a gas turbine engine, comprising:
a body portion that includes a first wall spaced apart
circumferentially from a second wall;
at least one rib that extends radially along a radial axis and
extends circumferentially between said first wall and said second
wall; and
at least one aperture that extends through said at least one
rib, said at least one aperture being elongated to define an
aperture axis through a pair of circumferential ends, said pair of
circumferential ends being spaced apart from said first wall and
said second wall, wherein said aperture axis of said at least one
aperture is angled relative to said radial axis of said at least one
rib, and wherein a circumferential width of said at least one
aperture is at least 50% of a circumferential width of said at least
one rib.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Liang (US 7,780,415 B2, iss.
Aug. 24, 2010) and Pearson et al. (US 2015/0226069 Al, pub.
Aug. 13, 2015) (hereinafter "Pearson");
II. Claims 4 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Liang, Pearson, and Sasada et al. (US 4,662,820, iss. May 5,
1987) (hereinafter "Sasada"); and
2
Appeal2018-006806
Application 14/759,761
III. Claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Liang, Pearson, and Naik et al. (US 2010/0254824 Al, pub.
Oct. 7, 2010) (hereinafter "Naik").
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
Initially, we note that Appellants argue against the rejection of
independent claims 1, 13, and 17, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10,
12, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21-23, together as a group. See Appeal Br. 3-5. We
base our analysis on claim 1, and the remaining claims either stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
In claim 1 's rejection, the Examiner relies on Liang to disclose claim
recitations including the body portion, rib, and aperture that extends through
the rib, although the aperture is not elongated as claimed. Final Action 3.
However, the Examiner relies on Pearson's "bottommost [crossover
hole] 84," as shown in Pearson's Figure 3, to disclose the claimed
"aperture ... elongated to define an aperture axis ... , wherein said aperture
axis of said at least one aperture is angled relative to said radial axis of said
at least one rib." Id. at 3--4; Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 1 ). According
to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to use Pearson's elongated
crossover hole 84 in place of Liang' s circular orifice, because Pearson
discloses that the use of an elongated rather than a circular orifice "reduce[ s]
stresses due to the incorporation of holes" in the rib. Final Action 4 ( citing
Pearson ,r 5).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is in error because,
according to Appellants, modifying Liang with Pearson's aperture "would
3
Appeal2018-006806
Application 14/759,761
impermissibly change the principle of operation of Liang[,] and render Liang
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Appeal Br. 4. More specifically,
according to Appellants,
[w]ere one to modify ... orifices 68 of Liang in view of Pearson,
then one would form . . . aperture 68 to have an elliptical
geometry. One would then angle ... aperture 68 as allegedly
taught by Pearson, which would reduce an impingement angle
of. . . converging sidewalls 7 4, 7 6 due to the circumferential
widening of the upstream end of orifice 68. The reduced
impingement angle due to the widening of ... orifice 68 would
reduce the cooling effect, contrary to the teachings of Liang.
Id. at 4--5 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2.
Liang does disclose that "converging cavity sidewalls 7 4, 7 6 increase
the impingement angle of the cooling air jet passing through ... orifices 68
relative to ... sidewalls 74, 76 to increase the cooling effect on ... pressure
and suction sidewalls 18, 20 in the area of ... trailing edge 24." Liang,
col. 5, 11. 61---65 (emphases omitted). Appellants do not persuade us,
however, that using an elongated opening, angled relative to the rib's radial
axis, would impermissibly change Liang's principle of operation or render
Liang unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. More specifically, Appellants
do not present evidence or a line of argument sufficient to persuade us that
replacing Liang's orifice with Pearson's elongated crossover hole "would
reduce an impingement angle," or that a reduced impingement angle "would
reduce the cooling effect" in a technically meaningful way. Appeal Br. 4--5.
Appellants next argue that "[ m ]odification of ... orifice 68 to be an
elongated aperture would also increase the manufacturing complexity of
forming ... orifice 68, contrary to the teachings of Liang. Thus, one would
not tum to Pearson to modify Liang." Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants do not persuade us with this argument, however. Liang does
4
Appeal2018-006806
Application 14/759,761
disclose that "orifices 68 and trailing edge openings 38 are preferably
formed as drilled holes, in contrast to orifices or openings formed by typical
casting processes. The drilled holes permit a smaller orifice 68 and
opening 38 to be formed than may be provided by casting." Liang col. 6,
11. 16-20. These statements fail to persuade us, however, that Liang's
general preference for drilled holes indicates that one of ordinary skill would
not have known about, or formed orifices or openings from typical casting
processes for the other stated reasons.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner "fails to establish that one
would have been motivated to combine the cited references in the manner
proposed by the Examiner." Appeal Br. 5. Specifically, the Examiner "does
not point to any objective evidence in Pearson that teaches or otherwise
suggests that it was known to utilize the crossover holes 84 for a trailing
edge cooling cavity." Id. Appellants' argument does not persuade us of
error, however.
Liang discloses that "[b ]ecause the trailing edge is relatively thin and
an area prone to development of high stresses during operation, the trailing
edge is highly susceptible to formation of cracks." Liang col. 1, 11. 55-58.
Pearson discloses that "[i]n the prior art, leading edge crossover holes are
typically a location of high internal concentrated stress, and a location of
potential cracking during operation." Pearson ,r 27. Pearson further
discloses that "[p ]rior art crossover holes obtain some reduction in the stress
concentration factor as (compared to circular holes) by the use of noncircular
shapes such as an ellipse." Id. ,r 29. Although Pearson primarily shows and
describes elongated crossover holes 84 on ribs near the leading edge,
Pearson does not limit the use of elongated crossover holes to these ribs, but
5
Appeal2018-006806
Application 14/759,761
instead explains "[t]he principles of the present invention are applicable to a
wide variety of cooling configurations." Id. ,r 22.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use
Pearson's elongated crossover holes in Liang "to reduce stresses due to the
incorporation of holes." Final Action 4. Based on the above, the Examiner
provides a sufficiently-articulated reasoning, with an adequate rational
underpinning, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn,
441 F .3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR International
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
For these reasons, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner
errs. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 13, and 17, and of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12,
15, 16, 18, 19, and 21-23.
Re;ection II
Dependent claim 4 recites "wherein said body portion is part of a
blade outer air seal (BOAS)." With respect to claim 4, the Examiner finds
that although Liang and Pearson do not disclose a BOAS, "Sasada teaches a
BOAS (shroud ring 5) attached to a turbine blade." Final Action 12.
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs, because
[ o ]ne would not understand shroud ring 5 of the shrouded blade
of Sasada to be a BOAS in view of Appellant[s'] Specification.
One would understand that a BOAS is spaced apart from a blade
tip to establish a sealing relationship along a clearance gap.
Indeed, Appellant[ s '] Specification distinguishes between a
BOAS and a blade or airfoil (see, e.g., para. [0043]).
Appeal Br. 6 ( emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 3--4.
6
Appeal2018-006806
Application 14/759,761
The Specification mentions "BOAS" only once, stating that
"component 50 could be a non-airfoil component, including[,] but not
limited to, a blade outer air seal (BOAS)." Spec. ,r 43. Appellants'
Specification fails to state that a BOAS may not be a component initially
separate from but later connected to a blade or airfoil. The Examiner finds
that "shroud ring 5 is an annular structure joined to the radially outer end of
blade 4 (the airfoil portion of the turbine stage shown in Fig. 4). As such,
shroud ring 5 is 'a non-airfoil component."' Answer 5. Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's specific findings.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain claim 4's rejection. We also
sustain claim 20's rejection, against which Appellants do not argue
separately.
Reiection III
Each of dependent claims 6 and 14 recites "wherein said at least one
aperture includes an aspect ratio of between 1: 1 and 5: 1." The Examiner
relies on Naik to disclose the claimed ratios. Final Action 15. Appellants
argue that the Examiner errs, because the Examiner "fails to point to any
objective evidence or provide any articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning establishing that it would have been obvious to modify Liang
in view of Pearson with Naik." Appeal Br. 6. We agree with Appellants,
and, therefore, we do not sustain this rejection.
The Federal Circuit has stated that "rejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (Fed. Cir.
7
Appeal2018-006806
Application 14/759,761
2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (2007). Here, the
Examiner provides no sufficient, articulated reason, in either the Final Office
Action or the Answer, that one would have been motivated to limit the
aspect ratio of the apertures in Liang and Pearson. The Examiner determines
only that
[i]t would have been obvious ... to have modified Liang in view
of Pearson with the recited aspect ratio range since it has been
held that "[i]n the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie
inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of
obviousness exists." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 ... (CCPA
1976).
Final Action 15. This does not establish, however, that it would have been
obvious to modify the combination of Liang and Pearson, based on Naik.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 6 and 14.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15-23.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 6 and 14.
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
8