Lane Thornton et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2019

14908573 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2019)

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.
14/908,573 01/29/2016 Lane Thornton 74129US01;
67097-2667US1
1061
54549 7590 11/04/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
HAGHIGHIAN, BEHNOUSH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2019 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 LANE THORNTON and MATTHEW ANDREW HOUGH

Appeal 2019-002368
Application 14/908,573
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 11–18, and 20–27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002368
Application 14/908,573

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification “relates to cooling of a platform component in a gas
turbine engine. More particularly, the disclosure relates to cooling holes
provided in a platform for a component such as an airfoil or blade outer air
seal component, for example.” Spec. ¶ 2.

CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine component comprising:
first and second components each having an airfoil
extending radially outwardly from a platform and a root
extending radially inward from the platform, wherein each airfoil
has a passage configured to receive cooling flow, and wherein
each platform has an upper surface and a lower surface and with
a plurality of side faces extending between the upper and lower
surfaces, the platforms being arranged adjacent to one another
such that one side face of the platform faces a mating side face
of an adjacent platform; and
at least one cooling hole formed within the platform, the
at least one cooling hole having an inlet to receive the cooling
flow from the passage formed within the airfoil and an outlet at
least at one of side faces of the platform, and wherein the at least
one cooling hole increases in size in a direction extending from
the airfoil toward the outlet.
Appeal Br. 18.
Appeal 2019-002368
Application 14/908,573

3
REJECTIONS2
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 11–18, 20, 23, 24, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Spangler3 in view of Liang 606.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 11–18, 20, 23, 24, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Spangler in view of Liang 810.5
3. The Examiner rejects claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Spangler in view of Liang 606 and Fukue.6
4. The Examiner rejects claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Spangler in view of Liang 810 and Fukue.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 11–18, and 20–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Fukue in view of Liang 606 and Spangler.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness over Spangler and Liang 606
With respect to the rejection over Spangler in view of Liang 606, we
are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the combined teachings of
Spangler and Liang 606 do not teach or suggest the Examiner’s proposed
modification of Spangler. See Reply Br. 3. Regarding independent claims 1
and 11, the Examiner relies on Liang 606 insofar as Liang 606 teaches
cooling channels with diffusion slots 30 that increase in size toward the
channel outlet. See Final Act. 5–6, 9–10. The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to modify Spangler’s cooling channels with

2 The Examiner has indicated that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has
been overcome. See Advisory Action, mailed June 11, 2018.
3 Spangler et al., US 8,206,114 B2, iss. June 26, 2012.
4 Liang, US 7,766,606 B2, iss. Aug. 3, 2010.
5 Liang, US 8,079,810 B2, iss. Dec. 20, 2011.
6 Fukue et al., US 6,190,130 B1, iss. Feb. 20, 2001.
Appeal 2019-002368
Application 14/908,573

4
diffusion slots, as taught by Liang 606, “in order to improve the overall
platform cooling efficiency, reduce the platform metal temperature and
reduce cooling fluid consumption.” Id. at 6.
Appellant correctly notes that Liang 606 teaches that cooling channels
extending from the interior of the airfoil to an outlet, as in Spangler, have
certain shortcomings that Liang 606 seeks to overcome by including cooling
channels that do not extend from the interior of the airfoil. See Reply Br. 2–
3 (citing Liang 606 col. 1, ll. 54–57). As such, Liang 606 teaches a cooling
system that includes internal cavities in the airfoil and separate suction side
and pressure side cooling channels, including pressure side channels that
have diffusion slots. See Liang 606 col. 2, ll. 1–12. Liang 606 teaches that
this configuration “creates a double use of cooling fluids that improves the
overall platform cooling efficiency, reduces the platform metal temperature
and reduces cooling fluid consumption.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 12–16. The
Examiner relies on this statement as the reason for making the proposed
combination. See Final Act. 6. However, Liang 606 is referring to the
overall configuration of the cooling system, and does not indicate that these
benefits are obtained simply by the use of diffusion slots 30 in cooling
channels 26. Thus, the Examiner has not set forth an adequate reason
showing why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
modify Spangler’s cooling system to include only the diffusion sections
taught by Liang 606. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11, here, and we also do not sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2–8, 12–18, 20, 23, 24, and 27 for the same reasons.
Appeal 2019-002368
Application 14/908,573

5
Obviousness over Spangler and Liang 810
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Spangler discloses a
gas turbine engine component with first and second components and at least
one cooling hole, as claimed, except that Spangler does not teach a cooling
hole that increases in size in a direction toward its outlet from the platform.
Final Act. 13. The Examiner relies on Liang 810 as teaching “a divergent
cooling hole (20) which increases in size in a direction toward the outlet.”
Id. The Examiner finds that Liang 810 teaches that increasing the size of the
cooling hole “may allow cooling fluids to diffuse to create better film
coverage and yield better cooling,” and, thus, the Examiner determines it
would have been obvious to modify Spangler’s cooling hole such that it
expands, as taught by Liang 810, “in order to allow the cooling fluid to
diffuse to create better film coverage and yield better cooling.” Id. at 13–14
(citing Liang 810 col. 4, ll. 26–28; col. 4, l. 54–col. 5, l. 24).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion with
respect to claim 1, here. See Final Act. 13–14. Appellant argues that neither
reference teaches cooling holes in a platform that increase in size. Appeal
Br. 9. Appellant asserts that Spangler does not disclose increasing platform
cooling hole size, and that Liang 810 discloses only a cooling configuration
in which cooling fluid is exhausted from internal airfoil channels, and does
not suggest that this system would be suitable for platform cooling channels.
Id. We are not persuaded of error by this argument.
First, to the extent Appellant argues that neither reference individually
teaches cooling holes in a platform that increase in diameter, the rejection
relies on the combination of Spangler and Liang 810 to show that this
Appeal 2019-002368
Application 14/908,573

6
arrangement would have been obvious. Thus, Appellant’s argument against
the structure provided in the references individually is not persuasive.
Second, we disagree that Liang 810 must provide a suggestion that its
cooling system is suitable for platform cooling in order for the claim to be
found obvious. The rejection relies on Liang 810’s cooling holes insofar as
they include a diffusion section, and the Examiner determines that providing
such a diffusion section in Spangler’s cooling channels would “allow the
cooling fluid to diffuse to create better film coverage and yield better
cooling,” as taught by Liang 810. Final Act. 13–14. Liang 810 discloses
that using a “divergent film cooling hole 20 may allow cooling fluids to
diffuse to create better film coverage and yield better cooling of the turbine
airfoil.” Liang 810 col. 4, ll. 26–28. We find that this teaching adequately
supports the Examiner’s finding and determination, and Appellant’s
argument does not adequately address the Examiner’s reasoning or
otherwise persuade us that the Examiner erred.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1, here. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to claims 2
and 24, and, thus, we sustain the rejection of those claims for the same
reasons.
Claims 3–8
Claim 3, for example, requires that the cooling hole has a first-cross
section at its inlet, which is less than a second-cross section at its outlet.
Appeal Br. 18. Appellant argues that Spangler discloses a cooling hole with
the same cross-section at its inlet and outlet and that Liang 810 does not
teach a relationship in size between the inlet and outlet of a cooling hole in a
Appeal 2019-002368
Application 14/908,573

7
platform. Id. at 10. We are not persuaded by this argument against the
references individually, and we agree with the Examiner that the claim reads
on the proposed combination of art. See Final Act. 14. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 3, here. Regarding claims 4–8, Appellant
raises similar arguments regarding the references individually. However, the
rejection makes clear that it is the combination of art that renders the claims
obvious. Final Act. 15–16. Thus, Appellant’s arguments against the
references individually do not persuade us of error, and, therefore, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 4–8, here.
Claims 11–13, 20, and 23
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner finds that Spangler teaches a
method of cooling a gas turbine as claimed, except that Spangler does not
teach cooling holes that diffuse cooling fluid in a direction from the airfoil to
the outlet at the side of a platform. Final Act. 16–17. The Examiner relies
on Liang 810 regarding this deficiency in a manner substantially similar to
how the Examiner relied on Liang 810 in rejecting claim 1, discussed above.
Id. at 17.
Here, Appellant argues that neither reference teaches cooling holes
that both extend from the airfoil to the platform edge and diffuse the cooling
fluid. Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant also asserts that Liang 810 does not
“suggest that features of airfoil film cooling holes would be beneficial to
platform cooling holes.” Id. at 13. We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the same reasons we were not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 11, here. We also sustain the rejection of claims 12,
13, 20, and 23, for which Appellant does not provide separate arguments.
Appeal 2019-002368
Application 14/908,573

8
Claims 14–18
With respect to these claims, Appellant relies on the arguments
discussed above with respect to claims 3–7. We are similarly unpersuaded
by these arguments here, and, thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 14–18.
Claim 27
Appellant again relies on arguments focused on the art individually
and without reference to the combination proposed by the Examiner. See
Appeal Br. 14; see also Final Act. 20. As above, we are not persuaded by
this type of argument here. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of
claim 27.
Obviousness over Spangler, Liang 606, and Fukue
In rejecting claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 over the combination of
Spangler, Liang 606, and Fukue, the Examiner does not establish that the art
of record cures the deficiency in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 over the
combination of Spangler and Liang 606, as discussed above. Accordingly,
we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 21, 22, 25, and 26, here.
Obviousness over Spangler, Liang 810, and Fukue
With respect to this rejection of claims 21, 22, 25, and 26, Appellant
argues only that “Fukue does not make up for” the deficiency in the rejection
of the independent claims over the combination of Spangler and Liang 810.
Appeal Br. 14. Having found no such deficiency, we sustain the rejection of
claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 for the reasons discussed above.
Obviousness over Fukue, Liang 606, and Spangler
With respect to this rejection, the Examiner relies on Liang 606 in the
same manner discussed above in the rejection over Spangler and Liang 606.
See Final Act. 24. We determine that this rejection includes the same error
Appeal 2019-002368
Application 14/908,573

9
such that it lacks an adequate reason to support the combination of art
proposed. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection.

CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections relying on Liang 606, and we AFFIRM
the rejections relying on Liang 810.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136 (a)(l)(iv).

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 11–18,
20, 23, 24, 27
103 Spangler,
Liang 606
1–8, 11–
18, 20,
23, 24,
27
1–8, 11–18,
20, 23, 24, 27
103 Spangler,
Liang 810
1–8, 11–18,
20, 23, 24,
27

21, 22, 25, 26 103 Spangler, Liang
606, Fukue
21, 22,
25, 26
21, 22, 25, 26 103 Spangler, Liang
810, Fukue
21, 22, 25,
26

1–8, 11–18,
20–27
103 Fukue, Liang
606, Spangler
1–8, 11–
18, 20–
27
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 11–18,
20–27

AFFIRMED