Ex Parte Slavens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2019

14633677 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/633,677 02/27/2015 Thomas N. Slavens
54549 7590 02/01/2019
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.
75069US02;
67097-2859PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
2966
EXAMINER
HAGHIGHIAN, BEHNOUSH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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 THOMAS N. SLAVENS,
DOMINIC J. MONGILLO JR., and MATTHEW A. DEVORE
Appeal2018-001968
Application 14/633,677
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, JILL D. HILL, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-19. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, United Technologies Corp., identified by the
Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001968
Application 14/633,677
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A gas turbine engine component, comprising:
an airfoil having a leading edge area that corresponds to a
stagnation traverse region of the airfoil;
a first circuit to cool a first section of the leading edge area;
and
a second circuit to cool a second section of the leading
edge area, the first circuit separate and distinct from the second
circuit within the airfoil.
Rejections
I. Claims 1-7 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Kercher (US 5,356,265, issued Oct. 18, 1994).
Final Act. 6-11.
II. Claims 1-9 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Eneau (US 2003/0044278 Al, published Mar.
6, 2003). Final Act. 11-15.
III. Claims 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kercher and Wetzler (US 3,584,458, issued June 15,
1971). Final Act. 16-19.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1-35 US.C. § 102(a)(l)-Kercher
Claims 1-7, 16-19
The Examiner finds Kercher discloses an airfoil with a leading edge
area and first and second circuits to cool sections of the leading edge area.
Final Act. 6-7 (citing Kercher col. 3, 11. 11-14, col. 5, 11. 43--45, col. 5. 11.
2
Appeal2018-001968
Application 14/633,677
48-55, Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner finds Kercher's first circuit cools a first
section of the leading edge area that corresponds to a stagnation traverse
region of the airfoil. Id. at 7 (citing Kercher col. 5, 11. 53-55, Figs. 1, 2).
Appellant argues the rejection fails to show a teaching in Kercher of a
leading edge area that corresponds to a "stagnation traverse region of the
airfoil," where a first and second cooling circuit cool sections of that leading
edge area. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant notes that the Examiner admits Kercher
fails to explicitly disclose that the leading edge area of the airfoil
"corresponds to a stagnation traverse region of the airfoil," as recited in
claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 16. Id. ( citing Final Act.
3). Appellant acknowledges the Examiner's finding that the stagnation
traverse region is "variable" and "incorporated in the leading edge area," but
argues these findings are insufficient to show Kercher discloses a stagnation
traverse region of the airfoil, where a first and second cooling circuit cool
sections of that leading edge area. Id.
The Examiner responds that "[t]he stagnation traverse region is not a
structural element positively recited in the claims, but rather is a
geographical designation." Ans. 3. The Examiner finds "this imaginary
region is not an independent region on the blade," and "is dependent on the
environment in which the blade is installed." Id. The Examiner interprets
the stagnation traverse region as a region of the airfoil traversed by the
maximum stagnation point due to a change of the angle of an adjustable
guide vane (AGV). Id. at 4 (citing Spec. ,r,r 5, 9); see also Spec. ,r 53 ("The
leading edge area 100 is the portion of the airfoil 72 traversed by a
maximum stagnation point of flow across the airfoil 72 throughout the one-
hundred-eighty degrees of incident angle shift."). The Examiner reasons:
3
Appeal2018-001968
Application 14/633,677
Id.
Both airfoils of the Appellant as well as the airfoil of Kercher,
when installed downstream of an AGV, will have a maximum
stagnation point that traverses a region due to the change of the
angle of the AGV and the associated flow. Without an AGV, the
maximum stagnation point is fixed and will not change nor
traverse and there won't be any stagnation traverse region neither
in the Appellant's airfoil nor in the Kercher's airfoil. In the
presence of an AGV, both airfoils of Appellant and Kercher will
have similar stagnation traverse regions which are dictated by the
AGV and its range of angle of movement, independent of the
airfoil. Hence, the leading edge of Kercher corresponds to a
stagnation traverse region in as much as Appellant's leading edge
does.
We agree with the Examiner's construction of the stagnation traverse
region, and that the boundaries of the stagnation traverse region for a given
airfoil will depend on the environment in which the blade is installed.
Nonetheless, the stagnation traverse region of Kercher's airfoil must be
identified in order to show anticipation. Otherwise, the limitation is, in
effect, read out of the claim. Although Kercher's airfoil and the airfoil
described in Appellant's Specification are similar, absent teaching of an
adjustable guide vane or the like to vary the incidence angle through 180
degrees, Kercher does not disclose that the two cooling circuits identified by
the Examiner will cool sections of the airfoil that correspond to a stagnation
traverse region of the airfoil.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 16, and we do not sustain the rejection on the same ground of claims 2-
7 and 17-19, which depend from claim 1 or claim 16.
4
Appeal2018-001968
Application 14/633,677
RejectionII-35 US.C. § 102(a)(l)-Eneau
Claims 1-9, 16-19
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 16-19 as anticipated by Eneau is in
error for the same reasons discussed above for the rejection based on
Kercher. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection.
RejectionIII-35 US.C. § 103
Claims 10-15
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 10-15 based on Kercher and
Wetzler under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is in error for the same reasons argued in
support of claims 1 and 16 because the obviousness rejection similarly relies
on Kercher for teaching the second circuit recited in claim 10. Appeal Br.
10. We agree with Appellant that Wetzler does not cure the deficiencies
discussed above for claims 1 and 16. Wetzler teaches variable setting vanes,
Wetzler col. 2, 11. 24--27, and the Examiner explains why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have placed a variable vane array upstream of
Kercher's turbine blades, see Final Act. 17. The rejection does not,
however, explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have situated the
variable vane array such that two circuits would cool a leading edge area that
corresponds to a stagnation traverse region of the airfoil.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, or the rejection on the same ground of dependent claims 11-
15.
5
Appeal2018-001968
Application 14/633,677
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19.
REVERSED
6