2020002846 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)

United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 1, 2021

2020002846 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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. 14/522,656 10/24/2014 James M. Koonankeil 74194US02; 67097-2740US1 5657 54549 7590 04/01/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2021 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 JAMES M. KOONANKEIL, EDWARD F. PIETRASZKIEWICZ, FRANCIS M. TAMISO, and KIRK D. HLAVATY Appeal 2020-002846 Application 14/522,656 Technology Center 3700 Before DANIEL S. SONG, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, 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 1–5, 7–13, and 15–30. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 Raytheon Technologies Corporation. Update to Real Party in Interest, April 23, 2020. Appeal 2020-002846 Application 14/522,656 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method of reducing manufacturing variation related to blocked cooling holes. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A cooling circuit for a gas turbine engine comprising: a gas turbine engine component having at least one internal cooling channel that directs cooling flow in a desired direction, the at least one internal cooling channel defined by an internal wall surface; a plurality of turbulent flow features extending outwardly from the internal wall surface, each turbulent flow feature being spaced apart from an adjacent turbulent flow feature in a first direction; at least one trench extending through the turbulent flow features in the first direction to divide the plurality of turbulent flow features into a first sub-set of turbulent flow portions on one side of the trench and a second sub-set of turbulent flow portions spaced from the first sub-set of turbulent flow portions in a second direction and located on an opposite side of the trench; a plurality of ribs extending outwardly from the internal wall surface, and wherein the turbulent flow features extend from one rib toward an adjacent rib in the second direction; and a plurality of cooling holes formed within the at least one trench between the first and second sub-sets of turbulent flow portions in the second direction such that the cooling holes do not overlap with the turbulent flow features. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lee US 4,514,144 April 30, 1985 Kitamura US 2006/0210399 A1 Sept. 21, 2006 Pietraszkiewicz US 2007/0189897 A1 Aug. 16, 2007 Appeal 2020-002846 Application 14/522,656 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, 21–23, 27 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee. Final Act. 3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kitamura. Final Act. 8. Claims 8, 20, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee. Final Act. 9. Claims 10, 13, 15, 24–26, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Kitamura. Final Act. 10. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Kitamura. Final Act. 13.Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Pietraszkiewicz. Final Act. 14. OPINION Anticipation All of the Examiner’s rejections rely on Lee either alone or in combination with other references. According to the Examiner, Lee teaches all elements found, for example, in claim 1. Specific to arguments made by Appellant, the Examiner finds that Lee teaches an internal wall surface 24, a plurality of turbulent flow features 22, and a plurality of ribs R. See Ans. 6. Lee itself does not describe ribs R, but the Examiner provided an annotated version of Lee’s Figure 1 in which the Examiner added the label R to denote the ribs in Lee. Id. Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s findings, specifically with regard to the ribs R. See, e.g., Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, “there is no disclosure in Lee of having two different structures (ribs and turbulent Appeal 2020-002846 Application 14/522,656 4 flow features)” and the “Examiner’s ‘turbulent flow features 22’ correspond to the ribs as described in Lee while the Examiner’s ‘ribs R’ are simply an internal wall surface.” Id. In other words, what the Examiner denotes as ribs R are actually the same as internal wall surface 24. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has identified only two of the claimed features and refers to the same feature of Lee as comprising both the ribs and the internal wall surface. This can most easily be seen in Figures 6 and 7, which are three dimensional views of the channels found in Lee’s turbine blade. Below is a reproduction of Lee’s Figure 6 showing a cooling passage having ribs 22 and walls 24 and 26. As is clear from Figure 6, Lee’s passage is a rectangular tunnel with flat walls 24 and 26 and including ribs 22 extending from the walls. The Examiner attempts to confuse the issue by marking up Figures 1 and 2, which are two-dimensional cross-sectional views that do not adequately show what is seen in Figure 6, for example. Figure 1 does not label wall 24, but it is clear that wall 24 is the same as what the Examiner labels as rib R. Figure 6 makes clear that Lee teaches flat internal wall surfaces 24 and 26 Appeal 2020-002846 Application 14/522,656 5 and that the only protruding portions are ribs 22. Claim 1 requires separate ribs and turbulent flow features that each extend from the internal wall. At best, the Examiner has identified only ribs 22 that extend from Lee’s wall surfaces 24 and 26 and has re-labeled wall 24 as also being ribs R. Accordingly, because the Examiner has failed to identify two separate protruding features as required by claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. The remaining independent claims all require the same or similar features missing from Lee and upon which the Examiner erroneously relies upon Lee for teaching. Neither Kitamura nor Pietraszkiewicz cures this defect. Accordingly, we do not sustain any of the Examiner’s rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED. Appeal 2020-002846 Application 14/522,656 6 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, 21– 23, 27, 29 102 Lee 1–3, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, 21– 23, 27, 29 4 103 Lee, Kitamura 4 8, 20, 28 103 Lee 8, 20, 28 10, 13, 15, 24–26, 30 Lee, Kitamura 10, 13, 15, 24–26, 30 11, 12 103 Lee, Kitamura 11, 12 18, 19 103 Lee, Pietrasrzkiewicz, 18, 19 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–13, 15–30 REVERSED