Ex Parte Teller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 2, 2018

13585274 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2018)

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