Ex Parte Xu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2017

13543932 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/543,932 07/09/2012 JinQuan Xu PA21001U;
67097-1827US1
1019
54549 7590 12/18/2017
TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS/PR ATT fr WHTTNFY
EXAMINER
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
WHITE, DWAYNE J
Birmingham, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2017 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 JINQUAN XU, EDWARD F. PIETRASZKIEWICZ,
MARK F. ZELESKY, GLENN LEVASSEUR, COLCHESTER,
and DOMINIC J. MONGILLO
Appeal 2017-002514
Application 13/543,932
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15—191 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Lacy (US 2012/0167389 Al, pub. July 5, 2012) and Bunker
(US 2011/0293423 Al, pub. Dec. 1, 2011).2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The claims on appeal were amended in an after-final amendment dated
September 11, 2015.
2 The Examiner entered a new grounds of rejection in the Answer and
contemporaneously withdrew grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(e) and 103(a) over Lacy. Ans. 2-12.
Appeal 2017-002514
Application 13/543,932
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to gas turbine engine components with
cooling holes. Spec. ^ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A gas turbine engine component comprising:
a wall having an inner face, and a skin;
a plurality of cooling holes extending from said inner face
to said skin, said cooling holes including an inlet extending
from said inner face and merging into a metering section, and a
diffusion section downstream of said metering section, and
extending to an outlet at said skin;
said diffusion section including a plurality of lobes, and a
coating layer at said skin, with at least a portion of said plurality
of lobes formed within said coating layer;
a downstream end of said diffusion section extending to a
straight trailing edge, and said downstream end being formed at
least partially in said coating layer; and
said straight trailing edge forms a downstream most end
across the entire width of said cooling holes.
OPINION
Appellants argue all pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 2—4,
Reply Br. 1-2. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Lacy teaches the claimed invention except
for a straight trailing edge on the downstream end for which the Examiner
relies on in Bunker. Ans. 2-3. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Lacy’s cooling holes with a straight trailing edge as
taught by Bunker. Id. at 3. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary
2
Appeal 2017-002514
Application 13/543,932
skill in the art would have done this to reduce flow separation of the cooling
air from the outer wall surface. Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that Bunker
does not teach a straight trailing edge of a cooling hole as claimed. Appeal
Br. 3, Reply Br. 1. According to Appellants, Bunker’s plateau 60 is “not
part of the hole.” Reply Br. 1.
In response, the Examiner states Bunker teaches that the plateau is
“usually sloped.” Ans. 12. The Examiner further states that:
Since the plateau is sloping and acting as the bottom surface of
the hole, it must certainly be considered a part of the cooling
hole. As such, the straight downstream edge of the plateau
must be considered to be the downstream edge of the hole.
Id. at 13.
The sole issue before us is whether Bunker discloses a straight trailing
edge for a cooling hole. More particularly, we must decide whether the
trailing, downstream edge of Bunker’s plateau 60 is part of a cooling hole.
See Bunker, Fig. 4. Bunker is directed to an article, such as a gas turbine
engine component, that exhibits cooling holes with chevron shaped outlets.
Bunker, Abstract, 34. Top-view illustrations of certain embodiments of
the cooling holes are depicted in Figures 3 and 4. Bunker, Figs. 3, 4. The
downstream portion of the chevron shaped outlet features a “plateau” that
can assume the shape of a triangle, a trapezoid, or any other polygon. Id.
at 51. Furthermore,
the front surface is usually sloped, e.g., gradually decreasing in
size (like a ramp) until merging into the valley surface 48. In
general, the shape and size of the plateau and the valley from
3
Appeal 2017-002514
Application 13/543,932
which it rises are important factors in maximizing the diffusion
of cooling air that is channeled through the passage holes.
Id. 49. With respect to the embodiment depicted in Figure 3, Bunker
further discloses that:
Inlet bore 34 is shown as extending from point X to point Y,
i.e., ending as bore outlet 38. The remainder of the passage hole
from bore outlet 38 toward surface 26 (i.e., in a direction
opposite that of inlet hole 30) can be thought of as the "passage
hole-exit."
Id. 44 (emphasis added). Bunker’s foregoing discussion of Figure 3, taken
in conjunction with the depictions and description of the Figure 4
embodiment, and further taken in conjunction with the description in
paragraph 49 that the plateau is “sloped,” effectively refutes Appellants’
position that plateau 60 is not part of the hole. Comparing Figure 3 to
Figure 4 of Bunker, it is reasonable that plateau 60 “can be thought of ’ as
the “passage hole-exit.” Bunker, Figs. 3, 4, 44, 49.
The Examiner’s finding that Bunker discloses a cooling hole trailing
edge that runs straight across the entire width of the downstream end of the
cooling hole is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of
claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15-19.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15-19
is affirmed.
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
4