Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2018

13711241 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131711,241 12/11/2012
80944 7590 04/23/2018
Hoffman Warnick LLC
540 Broadway
4th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiuzhang James Zhang
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.
260361-1 4705
EXAMINER
CHRISTENSEN, DANIELLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2018 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):
ptocommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIUZHANG JAMES ZHANG,
ADEBUKOLA OLUWASEUN BENSON,
RICHARD RYAN PILSON, and STEPHEN WILLIAM TESH
Appeal2017-006928
Application 13/711,241
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Xiuzhang James Zhang et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated
June 28, 2016, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1--4, 7-13, 15-18,
and 20. 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Claims 5, 6, 14, and 19 are canceled. See Response After Final Action 2-
4, 6 (dated Aug. 25, 2016).
Appeal2017-006928
Application 13/711,241
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to "cooling passages in turbine
components." Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A turbine component comprising:
a base portion shaped as an airfoil;
and at least one elongated cylindrical drilled cooling
passage extending through the base portion to a tip of the base
portion, wherein the elongated cylindrical drilled cooling
passage has a variable diameter along a length of the base
portion, the variable diameter converging incrementally from a
first diameter at a root to a second diameter at the tip, the first
diameter being greater than the second diameter.
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 9, 12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dahmer et al. (US 2009/0297361
Al, pub. Dec. 3, 2009, hereinafter "Dahmer"), Marra (US
2011/0058949 Al, pub. Mar. 10, 2011), and Holden (EP 0 207 799
A2, pub. Jan. 7, 1987).
II. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 8, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dahmer, Marra, Holden, and Tomberg (US
2005/0047914 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2005).
III. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dahmer and Marra.
2
Appeal2017-006928
Application 13/711,241
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dahmer, Marra, and Tomberg.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that although Dahmer discloses a turbine
component 10 including, inter alia, "at least one elongated cylindrical
drilled cooling passage (40, 75, 45) ... ha[ving] a variable diameter" that
varies from a larger diameter at root portion 30 to a smaller diameter at tip
portion 37, "Dahmer fails to disclose that the elongated cylindrical cooling
passage has a variable diameter along a length of the base portion." Final
Act. 4 (citing Dahmer, Figs. 1-9). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
Marra discloses "a blade with [tapered] cooling channels (26) which taper
from the base of the airfoil to the tip, with the largest cross sectional area of
the channels being at the base of the airfoil." Id. at 4--5 (citing Marra,
Figs. 4, 7). The Examiner further finds that "Holden ... teaches that cooling
channels throughout an airfoil can also be tapered in incremental steps." Id.
at 5 (citing Holden, Fig. 4 ).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a person
of ordinary skill in the art "to modify Dahmer's turbine component by
tapering the cooling channels through the base of the airfoil to its tip, as
taught by Marra, in order to produce the predictable result of maximizing the
cooling to the blade while maintaining the integrity of the walls of the
blade." Id. The Examiner also determines that it would have been obvious
for the same skilled artisan to "further modify Dahmer's turbine
3
Appeal2017-006928
Application 13/711,241
component[, as modified by Marra,] by tapering the cooling channels using
incremental steps, as taught by Holden, in order to produce the predictable
result of more abruptly changing the fluid flow characteristics of the
coolant." Id.
Appellants argue that because Dahmer discloses drilling of its cooling
passages 40, 45, and 75 by drilling from the root and tip ends, respectively,
using drills having different diameters for forming a large diameter portion
in the root end, a small diameter portion in the tip end, and a transition
region at the junction of the large and small diameter portions, Dahmer's
process "makes it impossible to provide an elongated passage," as called for
by independent claim 1, "as drilling a passage from the tip of the airfoil
would have a constant diameter, or a decreasing diameter." Appeal Br. 5
(citing Dahmer, para. 9). Thus, according to Appellants, "Dahmer not only
teaches away from a taper over the entire length of the passage but Dahmer
fails to provide ... a variable taper along the length of the passage." Id. at 6.
Appellants further assert that because claim 1 recites "elongated
cylindrical drilled cooling passage," whereas Marra discloses extruded tubes
bonded along surfaces 34, "Marra teaches away from drilled cylindrical
passages," and, thus, "the combination of Marra and Dahmer is improper."
Id. (citing Marra, paras. 16, 22); see also Reply Brief 3 (dated Mar. 2, 2017,
hereinafter "Reply Br."); Marra, Fig. 7. According to Appellants, "one
could not use the teaching of Marra [of extruded and bonded tubes] to make
the cooling passages in Dahmer, as Dahmer drills into a cast airfoil."
Appeal Br. 6-7, 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that Dahmer and
Marra teach away from a tapered passage over the entire length of a turbine
4
Appeal2017-006928
Application 13/711,241
component because prior art does not teach away from claimed subject
matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless
the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution
claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this
case, Appellants do not point to any portion of Dahmer, and we could not
find any, where Dahmer criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages
drilling at least one cooling passage having a varying diameter along turbine
component 10. As to Marra's disclosure, the Examiner is correct in that
"Marra does not teach that tapered cooling passages cannot be created by
drilling." Examiner's Answer 3 (dated Jan. 4, 2017, hereinafter "Ans.").
Although Dahmer and Marra employ different processes to
manufacture cooling passages in a turbine component, obviousness does not
require that all of the features of the secondary reference be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). Marra's disclosure is employed by the Examiner to show
"that the entire length of a cooling passage can be tapered." Ans. 3; see also
Final Act. 5. Moreover, we note that "[t]he patentability of a product does
not depend on its method of production." SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.
Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Nonetheless, we appreciate that independent claim 1 recites a "drilled
cooling passage" and Marra's process for making tapered channels 26 does
not include drilling. See Reply Br. 2-3; see also Marra, para. 15, Figs. 3, 9.
However, we agree with the Examiner that because Dahmer discloses
drilling cooling passages in a turbine airfoil using "any known
manufacturing technique," "it would be reasonable for one having ordinary
skill in the art to recognize that ... different manufacturing processes can be
5
Appeal2017-006928
Application 13/711,241
applied over the entire length of the cooling passage." Ans. 2-3. For
example, Dahmer discloses the use of "electrochemical drilling," which is a
process similar to Appellants' "shaped tube electrochemical machin[ ing]."
Compare Dahmer, para. 262 with, Spec. para. 53. Appellants do not
persuasively explain why electrochemical drilling would not be capable of
forming a cooling passage having a varying diameter, as taught by Marra,
converging from the root portion to the tip portion of Dahmer' s turbine
component 10.
Furthermore, we note Appellants are correct that the drills of Dahmer
shown in Figures 8 and 9 would not form a tapered hole. See Appeal Br. 5-
6. However, Dahmer discloses that the shape of transition regions 75, 80 is
formed by using drills 85, 90. See Dahmer, para. 26, Figs. 6-9. As an
artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what
the references disclose, the skilled artisan in the art of electrochemical
drilling would have known to choose an appropriately shaped electrode and
electrochemical drilling process parameters to form a tapered hole, as taught
by Marra, along the length of Dahmer's turbine component 10. See In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). Hence, we do not agree with
Appellants that "the combination of Marra and Dahmer would not result in
2 "[R ]adial cooling passages are formed by flowing an electrolyte around an
electrode and selectively electrolytically dissolving ... material at the
desired locations to form the cooling passages."
3 The "process removes ... [material] by electrolytic dissolution, utilizing a
flow of electric current between an electrode and the workpiece through an
electrolyte flowing in the intervening space to form the radial cooling flow
passages."
6
Appeal2017-006928
Application 13/711,241
an elongated cylindrical drilled cooling passage," as called for by claim 1.
Appeal Br. 7.
Lastly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Holden
teaches away from a passage that decreases in diameter from the root to the
tip" of an airfoil because "Holden shows an increased diameter at the tip of
the airfoil." Id. (citing Holden Figs. 3, 4). The skilled artisan is not
compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the
other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the Examiner
employs Holden's disclosure to show that "the transition between a larger
portion of the cooling passage to a smaller portion can either be gradual or
stepped." Ans. 4 (citing Holden, Figs. 3, 4). Moreover, we note that
Holden's Figure 1 shows a diameter at tip portion 21 that is smaller than at
hub portion 20.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons we sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Dahmer,
Marra, and Holden.
Claim 17
In addition to the arguments discussed supra that we have not found
persuasive, Appellants further argue that "[t]he root of the airfoil of Marra
would not have a larger diameter than at the base portion." Appeal Br. 7
(citing Marra, para. 23, Fig. 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because it is limited to
the embodiment of Figure 8, which the Examiner does not rely upon. See
Final Act. 4--5 (citing Marra, Figs. 4, 7). Figure 4 of Marra, upon which the
7
Appeal2017-006928
Application 13/711,241
Examiner relies, specifically discloses a tip end at Tl having a diameter that
is smaller than the diameter at base end T2. See Marra, para. 18.
As such, we likewise sustain the rejection of independent claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dahmer, Marra, and Holden.
Claims 2-4, 9, 12, and 18
Appellants rely on the arguments discussed supra. Appeal Br. 8
("The dependent claims ... are believed allowable for the same reasons.").
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection
of claims 2--4, 9, 12, and 18 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Dahmer, Marra, and Holden.
Re} ections II-IV
Appellants rely on the arguments discussed supra. Appeal Br. 8-9.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 7, 8, and 20 as unpatentable
over Dahmer, Marra, Holden, and Tomberg; of claims 10, 11, and 13 as
unpatentable over Dahmer and Marra; and of claims 15 and 16 as
unpatentable over Dahmer, Marra, and Tomberg.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-13, 15-18, and 20
under 35U.S.C.§103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8