United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020002577 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

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.
15/157,857 05/18/2016 Timothy M. Davis 93313US01;
67097-3379PUS1
7680
54549 7590 04/02/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
GARTENBERG, EHUD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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 TIMOTHY M. DAVIS, PAUL M. LUTJEN, and KEVIN J. RYAN
Appeal 2020-002577
Application 15/157,857
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12–16, 20, and 21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Technologies Corporation (formerly known as United Technologies
Corporation). See Update to Real Party in Interest submitted April 23, 2020.
Appeal 2020-002577
Application 15/157,857

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to an air cooled engine component
for a gas turbine engine that includes at least one internal passage therein.
Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 12, reproduced below with italics to highlight a pertinent
aspect of the claimed invention, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
12. An air cooled engine component for a gas turbine engine,
the engine component comprising:
a first end;
a second end;
a middle portion, wherein the first end, the second end
and the middle portion are portions of single continuous engine
component; and
at least one continuous internal passage extending from
the first end through the middle portion to the second end, the
at least one continuous passage including a first cross-section
within the first end and the second end and a second
cross-section within the middle portion, wherein one of the first
cross-section and the second cross-section includes a first
height greater than a second height.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kopmels US 7,273,351 B2 Sept. 25, 2007
Xu US 2013/0209229 A1 Aug. 15, 2013
Liang US 8,596,963 B1 Dec. 3, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 12–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Kopmels.
Claims 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Xu.
Appeal 2020-002577
Application 15/157,857

3
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Xu.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Xu and Liang.
OPINION
Anticipation—Kopmels
The Examiner finds that Kopmels discloses a component as recited in
claim 12. Ans. 3–5 (referencing annotated versions of Kopmels’s Figures
2C and 3C). Appellant argues that Kopmels’s “holes 30 are disposed
transverse to the surfaces to direct cooling air from passages within a blade
to an outer surface” and “are not passages that communicate cooling flow
from ends of the blade.” Appeal Br. 3. Instead, Appellant submits,
Kopmels’s cooling holes “communicate air from an internal passage 14 . . .
to an external surface” and “do not extend from one end of the blade to
another end of the blade.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Claim 12 recites an engine
component comprising “at least one continuous internal passage extending
from the first end through the middle portion to the second end.” Appeal
Br. 8 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Figures 2C and 3C of Kopmels
illustrate embodiments (cooling holes 30, 67, and 69) of cooling holes 20
shown in Figure 1 of Kopmels. See Kopmels 5:10–6:42. Cooling holes 20
“extend between [low pressure] supply passage 18 and discharge openings
22” on the surface of the airfoil. Id. 5:10–16. Thus, cooling holes 30, 67,
and 69, on which the Examiner reads the claimed “passage,” likewise extend
between an internal passage of the airfoil (the component) and discharge
Appeal 2020-002577
Application 15/157,857

4
openings on the exterior surface of the airfoil, not from a first end to a
second end of the component as recited in claim 12.
The Examiner appears to try to read both the claimed “engine
component” and the “internal passage” of the engine component on
Kopmels’s cooling hole 30. See Ans. 8 (stating that “engine
component/cooling hole 30 is a single continuous component having a first
end 32 that extend[s] to a second end 34” and “also comprises at least one
continuous internal passage 30 extending from the first end 32 through the
middle portion 38 to the second end 34”). This position is untenable. A
person having ordinary skill in the art, reading claim 12 in light of
Appellant’s underlying disclosure, which describes a gas turbine engine
component (i.e., blade outer air seal (BOAS) 62) having internal airflow
passages 70 defined therein and extending from one end of BOAS 62 to the
opposite end of BOAS 62, would understand that the “engine component”
and the “internal passage” are not one and the same structural element. See
Spec. ¶¶ 52–54; Figs. 2–4, 7. Rather, the skilled artisan would construe
claim 12 as requiring a structural engine component (comprising matter)
having defined therein an internal passage (empty space) extending from one
end of the engine component to the other end of the engine component.2

2 We appreciate that Appellant’s Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
somewhat imprecisely uses reference numbers 74a, 74b, and 76 (which
Appellant’s Specification uses to denote the first end, second end, and
middle portion, respectively, of passage 70) to identify the first end, the
second end, and the middle portion of the component (BOAS 62). See
Appeal Br. 2; Spec. ¶ 58. This is likely in part because Appellant’s
Specification and drawings do not include reference numbers to denote these
portions of BOAS 62. Nevertheless, those skilled in the art would
understand from the Specification and drawings that Appellant’s BOAS 62
Appeal 2020-002577
Application 15/157,857

5
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s finding of anticipation is
premised on an unreasonable construction of claim 12. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 12, or of its dependent claims 13–15, as
being anticipated by Kopmels.
Anticipation—Xu
The Examiner finds that Xu discloses an air cooled engine component
(gas turbine engine component 100) comprising a first end, a second end,
and a middle portion, and at least one continuous internal passage (cooling
hole 104) extending from the first end through the middle portion to the
second end. Ans. 5–6 (citing Xu, Fig. 3A). The Examiner further finds that
Xu’s passage has first and second cross sections including first and second
heights as recited in claim 12. Id.
Appellant argues that “Xu is directed to cooling holes 104 through a
gas path wall 102 . . . for communicating cooling air from a cool side 106 to
a hot surface 108” and that “a person of skill in the art would not understand
the Xu cooling holes as disclosing ends of a component.” Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant submits that “[t]he Examiner is reading the openings at each of
the cooling holes in Xu as the component ends” and contends that “an
opening is an empty space and therefore not an ‘end’ of component.” Id. at
5–6.
Appellant’s argument fails to apprise us of error in the rejection. In
short, Appellant does not persuasively explain why first surface 106 is not a

has a first end (the bottom of the BOAS in Figures 3, 4, and 7), a second end
(the top of the BOAS in Figures 3, 4, and 7), and a middle portion (the
middle of the BOAS), and that internal airflow passage 70 extends from the
bottom end of BOAS 62 through the middle to the top end of BOAS 62.
Appeal 2020-002577
Application 15/157,857

6
first end of Xu’s gas turbine component 100, and hot second surface 108 is
not a second end of component 100, in particular where gas turbine
component 100 is a platform, such as platform 56, or a shroud or engine
casing component. See Xu ¶ 39 (disclosing cooling holes or passages along
platform 56 or on a shroud or engine casing adjacent tip section 57), ¶ 42
(disclosing cooling holes that deliver cooling fluid through the platform
structures of the airfoil), ¶ 44 (disclosing that cooling hole 104 forms
cooling hole 60 though the wall of a casing or other gas engine component).
Granted, the Examiner somewhat imprecisely identifies inlet 114,
outlet 116, and transition 118 of cooling hole 104 as the first end, second
end, and middle portion, respectively, of the component. Ans. 5. However,
this is not unlike Appellant’s correspondingly imprecise use of reference
numbers 74a, 74b, and 76 (which the Specification uses to denote end
portions and the middle portion, respectively, of passage 70) to identify the
first end, second end, and middle portion of the component in the Summary
of Claimed Subject Matter section of the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 2;
Spec. ¶ 58; see note 2. However, we understand first surface 106 and
second surface 108 of Xu’s component 100, in which inlet 114 and outlet
116 are defined, to correspond to the first end and second end of the
component.
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 12 as anticipated by Xu. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 12, and of claims 13 and 15, for which Appellant does not
present any separate arguments, as anticipated by Xu.
Appeal 2020-002577
Application 15/157,857

7
Obviousness—Xu, alone or in view of Liang
In contesting the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Xu, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s “further
interpretation of Xu does not correct the deficiencies in the base reference.”
Appeal Br. 6. Having not been apprised of any such deficiencies, we
likewise are not apprised of error in the rejection of claim 16. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Xu.
In contesting the rejection of claims 20 and 21 as unpatentable over
Xu and Liang, Appellant incorporates the arguments presented against the
rejection of claim 12, and submits that “[t]he addition of Liang is provided
for the disclosure of a blade outer air seal” and “does not correct the
deficiencies in [Xu].” Appeal Br. 6. Having not been apprised of any such
deficiencies, we likewise are not apprised of error in the rejection of claims
20 and 21. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 21 as
unpatentable over Xu and Liang.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 12, 13, and 15 as anticipated by
Xu. We also AFFIRM the rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Xu,
and the rejection of claims 20 and 21 as unpatentable over Xu and Liang.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 12–15 as anticipated by
Kopmels.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12–16, 20, and 21 is
AFFIRMED IN PART.

Appeal 2020-002577
Application 15/157,857

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–15 102(a)(1) Kopmels 12–15
12, 13, 15 102(a)(1) Xu 12, 13, 15
16 103 Xu 16
20, 21 103 Xu, Liang 20, 21
Overall
Outcome
12, 13, 15,
16, 20, 21
14

RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART