Ex Parte Teller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 2, 201813585274 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/585,274 08/14/2012 Bret M. Teller 54549 7590 11/06/2018 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. 67097-1955PUS1; 60225US1 CONFIRMATION NO. 1030 EXAMINER CORDAY, CAMERON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/06/2018 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 BRET M. TELLER, MARK F. ZELESKY, SCOTT D. LEWIS, BRANDON W. SP ANGLER, and RICARDO TRINDADE Appeal 2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 1 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Brett M. Teller et al. ("Appellants") seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-23, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative, and reads: 1. A component for a gas turbine engine, comprising: a platform that axially extends between a leading edge and a trailing edge and circumferentially extends between a first mate face and a second mate face; a trench disposed on at least one of said first mate face and said second mate face; a plurality of cooling holes axially disposed within said trench; and a cavity disposed at least partially inside an airfoil that extends from said platform, said plurality of cooling holes being configured to directly receive fluid from a radially extending portion of said cavity. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 18-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Townes (US 2010/0316486 Al, published Dec. 16, 2010). 2. Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Townes. 3. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Townes and Spangler (US 2009/0116953 Al, published May 7, 2009) ("Spangler '953"). 4. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Townes and Spangler (US 2009/0269184 Al, published Oct. 29, 2009) ("Spangler '184"). 2 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 ANALYSIS Rejection I-Claims 1-5, 7-12, 18-21, and 23 as anticipated by Townes The Examiner finds that Townes discloses a component for a gas turbine engine, comprising a platform 51, a trench ( cooling slot 49), a plurality of cooling holes (flow apertures 52) axially disposed within the trench, and a cavity (internal flow duct 44) disposed at least partially inside airfoil 3 8 and including a radially extending portion (internal flow passage 42) of the cavity. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 5 of Townes identifying the location of the "radially extending portion." Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that Townes' cooling holes "directly receive fluid" from radially extending portion 42 as the fluid travels directly from that portion through the circumferential portion 44 to the cooling holes, as "the fluid does not exit the component or take a circuitous route before reaching the cooling holes." Id. at 2. Appellants contend the Examiner's interpretation of the term "directly" is impermissibly broad. Appeal Br. 4. Appellants state that a definition of "directly" is "with nothing or no one in between."' Id. at 4--5. 2 Appellants provide an annotated version of Figure 5 of Townes identifying the locations of a "Radial internal flow passage" ( corresponding to internal flow passage 42), an "Axial flow passage," a "Circumferential flow duct" (corresponding to internal flow duct 44), and a "Cooling hole" (corresponding to a flow passage 48). Id. at 5. Appellants contend that Townes' cooling holes do not "directly receive" fluid from radially 2 Citing Oxford Online Dictionary (https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/ directly) 3 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 extending portion 42; instead, Townes has "at least an intermediate circumferential flow duct." Id. Appellants explain that "the flow of cooling air is directed radially outwardly along internal flow passage 42, then the air flow travels axially into a circumferential flow duct 44, before travelling out through flow passages 48." Id. (citing Townes ,r,r 47--48). The Examiner responds that the cooling holes in Townes "directly receive fluid," because "the fluid always proceeds from the radially extending portion to the cooling holes without reversing due to its pressurized nature." Ans. 7. The Examiner submits that Townes' "cooling holes directly receive fluid from a radially extending portion of the cavity also because there is 'nothing or no one in between' (there are no barriers, restrictions or impediments to the fluid)." Id. Appellants' position is more persuasive. Appellants' definition of "directly" as meaning "with nothing or no one in between"' is consistent with the disclosure. For example, Figure 3 shows that the fluid flows from the cavity 66 into cooling holes 64, without passing through an intermediate flow passage. Likewise, Figure 6 shows that the fluid flows from the cavity 166 into cooling holes 164, without passing through an intermediate flow passage. In contrast, the cooling holes in Townes found by the Examiner (i.e., flow apertures 52), or flow passages 48, do not receive fluid "directly" from internal flow passage 42, but receive fluid directly from circumferential flow duct 44. See, e.g., Townes ,r 48, Fig. 5. The Examiner also submits that Figure 5 of Appellants' application shows that the cooling circuit "also includes a radial and circumferential portion before arriving at the cooling holes." Final Act. 2; id. at 3 4 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 (Examiner's annotated version of Appellants' Fig. 5 identifying the "Radially extending portion" and the "circumferentially extending portion"). Appellants disagree, contending that the "circumferential portion" in Appellants' Figure 5, as identified by the Examiner, is the cooling hole. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants point out that the Specification and drawings disclose that cooling holes 64, 164 extend transversely relative to the cavity, and contend that cavity 66, 166 communicates fluid directly to respective cooling hole 64, 164. Id. (citing Spec. ,r 46, Figs. 3, 6). The Examiner responds: Taking this broad interpretation of a cooling hole (that the cooling hole includes both the outlet portion and the portion extending to a radial cavity portion), it would be reasonable to interpret the cooling holes of Townes to include the circuniferential and axially extending portions. Additionally, the "radially extending portion of said cavity" limitation is broad. It would also be reasonable to interpret "a radially extending portion of said cavity" as the portion of the cavity immediately preceding the cooling holes of Townes (which has previously been referred to as the circuniferential portion of Towne[s '] cavity). This cavity can be interpreted to "radially extend" from the radius of the portion of the cavity immediately before it (the portion previously called the axial portion of Towne[s'] cavity). Ans. 9 (emphases added). We agree with Appellants that Appellants' Figure 5 does not support the Examiner's position as to the meaning of "directly receive." Rather, Appellants' position is consistent with the structure shown in Figure 5, in which the locations of the cooling holes (unnumbered) and cavity (unnumbered) are similar to those shown in Figure 6. As noted above, Figure 6 shows that the fluid flows from the cavity 166 directly into cooling holes 164. We do not agree with the Examiner that it is reasonable to 5 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 interpret "a radially extending portion of said cavity" as including, or, corresponding to, "the portion of the cavity immediately preceding the cooling holes of Townes ... previously ... referred to as the circumferential portion of Towne's cavity." Ans. 9. This circumferential portion (i.e., circumferentially extending flow duct 44) is not a radially extending portion of Townes' cavity. The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Townes discloses a "plurality of cooling holes [ disposed within said trench and] being configured to directly receive fluid from a radially extending portion of said cavity," as claimed. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, 21, and 23, as anticipated by Townes. Claim 18 recites a method of cooling a component of a gas turbine engine, comprising "extracting a portion of the cooling airflow from a radially extending portion of the cavity" and "directly communicating the portion of the cooling airflow from the cavity into at least one cooling hole that is in fluid communication with the cavity." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App. (emphases added)). For reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18, or of dependent claims 19 and 20, as anticipated by Townes. Rejection 2-Claims 13 and 15 as unpatentable over Townes Appellants contend that claim 13 recites "a cavity extending axially inside said platform and configured to directly communicate fluid to said at least one cooling hole," whereas Townes discloses a circumferential flow duct. Appeal Br. 6. This contention is not persuasive. Claim 13 does not recite "a cavity extending axially inside said platform," as Appellants contend, but recites "a 6 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 cavity extending inside said platform." Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App. (emphasis added)). We note that Appellants filed an Amendment After Final Office Action, which included a proposed amendment to claim 13 to change the phrase "a cavity extending" to "a cavity extending axially." See Arndt. 3 (filed June 28, 2017). However, this amendment was not entered by the Examiner. See Adv. Act. 2 (dated July 19, 2017). Claim 13 as set forth in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief correctly does not include the proposed amendment. Appellants contend that Townes fails to disclose "the axially extending cavity directly communicating fluid to the cooling hole," but instead, discloses a circumferential flow duct. Appeal Br. 6. However, as discussed above, claim 13 does not require an "axially extending cavity." The Examiner finds that Townes discloses at least one cooling hole (flow aperture 52) in fluid communication with a cavity (internal flow duct 44). Final Act. 6. Although Townes discloses that internal flow duct 44 extends circumferentially in turbine blade 22 shown in Figure 5 (see, e.g., Townes ,r 46), Appellants do not explain persuasively why internal flow duct 44 does not "directly communicate fluid to" flow aperture(s) 52, as required by claim 13. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 13, and of claim 15 depending therefrom and not separately argued, as unpatentable over Townes. Rejection 3-Claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over Townes and Spangler '953 Claim 16 depends from claim 13 and further requires "a second component adjacent to said component, wherein a seal is positioned between said component and said second component." Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). 7 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 Claim 1 7 depends from claim 16 and recites, "said seal is positioned radially inwardly from said platform of said component." Id. In rejecting claims 16 and 17, the Examiner finds that Townes teaches a second component adjacent to the component, and relies on Spangler '953 for teaching a seal 95 positioned between two components and radially inwardly from the components' platforms. Final Act. 7 ( citing Spangler '953 ,r,r 20, 21, Fig. 2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Townes to include these features of Spangler '953 "to seal a gap created to accommodate normal manufacturing tolerances and thermal expansion and contraction." Id. at 7-8. Appellants contend that seal 95 is positioned within a trench 90 in Spangler '953, whereas parent claim 13 requires "at least one cooling hole disposed within said trench" and "a cavity extending inside said platform and configured to directly communicate fluid to said at least one cooling hole." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants assert that modifying Townes with the seal arrangement of Spangler '953 would result in the seal blocking the cooling holes, thereby rendering Townes unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of cooling the component. Id. The Examiner responds that claims 16 and 1 7 broadly recite that a seal is positioned between the component and second component, and that the seal is positioned radially inwardly from the platform of the component, but do not precisely define the seal's location. Ans. 9. Appellants reply that as Spangler '953 discloses that seal 95 is positioned within trench 90, the Examiner's position concerning placing the seal radially inward from the platform is speculative because the applied prior art does not contemplate such a seal arrangement. Reply Br. 3. 8 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 First, the Examiner does not identify what particular components in Townes are considered to correspond to the claimed component and second component. Consequently, we are unable to determine which particular components in Townes the Examiner proposes to position a seal between for claim 16, or which particular component the Examiner proposes to position the seal radially inward from its platform for claim 1 7. Second, Spangler '953 discloses that seal 95 is held against radially inner major surface 65 of platform 60. See Spangler '953 ,r 21, Figs. 1, 2. Figure 2 of Spangler '953 shows that seal 95 is located in trench 90 defined between a left platform (unnumbered) and a right platform 60. Seal 95 is not, however, located radially inwardly from these platforms, as shown. Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner's position concerning placing the seal radially inwardly from the platform is not disclosed in Townes or Spangler '953. Nor has the Examiner articulated an adequate reason with a rational underpinning why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Townes in view of Spangler '953 to result in the gas turbine engine as recited in claim 16 or 17. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over Townes and Spangler '953. Rejection 4-Claim 22 over Townes and Spangler' 184 In rejecting claim 22, which depends from claim 13, the Examiner finds that Townes discloses a second component adjacent to the component, the component having a second platform (unnumbered) with a third mate face ( side face 41) that is configured without a trench. Final Act. 8 ( citing Townes, Fig. 7). The Examiner finds that Townes does not disclose that the second component has a third mate face configured without a cooling hole 9 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 that opens into the trench, and relies on Spangler ' 184 for teaching this feature. Final Act. 8 ( citing Spangler '184, Fig. 3). The Examiner finds that Spangler '184 teaches a component having a platform cooling hole ( cooling hole exit 150) adjacent to a second platform (cooling region 154) configured without a cooling hole. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Townes' second component to not have a cooling hole, as taught by Spangler '184, to provide impingement cooling on the third mate face. Id. Appellants contend Townes teaches that it is desirable to have a trench with cooling holes on both mate faces, stating, "the two sets of cooling apertures opening into the cooling slot from either side prevents the cooling flow of air being choked, and also maximizes the impingement cooling effect of the respective cooling air jets." Appeal Br. 8 (citing Townes ,r 53, Figs. 8, 9). Thus, Appellants contend, one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Townes with the teachings of Spangler '184 as proposed by the Examiner, because Townes teaches away from the claimed invention. Id. at 9. Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive. Figures 8 and 9 of Townes show flow passages 53, 55 with respective flow apertures 52, 54 opening into cooling slots 49a, 49b. See Townes ,r,r 53-54, Figs. 8, 9. However, Figure 7 of Townes shows an embodiment including flow passage 53 with flow aperture 52, which opens into cooling slot 49 of the component on the left. See Townes ,r 52. Townes describes that, during operation, cooling air is directed into cooling slot 49 via flow passages 53 and their associated flow apertures 52, thereby cooling the material of the shroud segment in the region of cooling slot 49, but also to impinge against, and hence cool, 10 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 adjacent side face 41 of the neighboring turbine blade on the right. See id. The blade on the right does not appear to have a trench. See id. Fig. 7. Townes also proposes providing, in the blade on the right, additional flow passages 53 extending from right internal flow duct 44 and terminating in flow apertures 54. See Townes ,r 53, Fig. 7. Townes does not, however, disclose that the blade on the right has a trench, or that its additional flow passages 54 are required in the structure shown in Figure 7. That is, the additional flow passages appear to be provided in another embodiment of shroud segment 25. And even if Townes teaches that it is desirable to have a trench with cooling holes on both mate faces, as Appellants assert, the Examiner submits that Townes does not teach away from an arrangement in which the third mate face does not include a cooling hole by also teaching a preferred embodiment for a cooling arrangement including a trench with cooling holes on both mate faces. Ans. 10. We agree. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed .... "). Here, even if the embodiment depicted in Figures 8 and 9 of Townes provides desirable cooling effects, Appellants do identify any disclosure in Townes that teaches away from the claimed features. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 22 as unpatentable over Townes and Spangler '184. 11 Appeal2018-003937 Application 13/585,274 DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 13, 15, and 22, and reverse the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, 16-21, and 23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation