CHANG, HOYT Y. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 3, 2019

14694106 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 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.
14/694,106 04/23/2015 HOYT Y. CHANG 80947US01 (15-177) 1394
52237 7590 12/03/2019
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
BREAZEAL, WILLIAM LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOYT Y. CHANG, BROOKS E. SNYDER, and
THOMAS N. SLAVENS
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and JILL D. HILL,
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 1–3, 8–13, 16, 17, and 21–24. 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. 2.
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a gas turbine engine and, more
particularly, to a combustor section therefor.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A heat shield for use in a combustor of a gas turbine engine
comprising:
an at least partially hollow attachment stud that extends
from a cold side that defines a cooling air passage along a
central axis, a closed end of said at least partially hollow
attachment stud about flush with said cold side, a plurality of
stud film cooling holes transverse to said central axis of said
cold side and in communication with said cooling air passage,
said at least partially hollow attachment stud having a threaded
distal end section.
EVIDENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Maeda US 4,820,097 Apr. 11, 1989
Razzell US 6,718,774 B2 Apr. 13, 2004
Pidcock US 9,518,737 B2 Dec. 13, 2016
Grendel US 9,702,560 B2 July 11, 2017
Hucker US 2015/0082798 A1 Mar. 26, 2015

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 11–13, 16, and 17 stand rejected provisionally under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 21–26 of Application 14/694,086 in view of Grendel.
II. Claims 1–3, 8–13, 16, 17, and 21–24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

3
III. Claims 1–3, 8, 11–13, 16, and 21–24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pidcock and Grendel.2
IV. Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Pidcock, Grendel, and Maeda.
V. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Pidcock, Grendel, and Hucker.

OPINION
Rejection I—Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 11–13, 16, and 17 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 21–26 of Application 14/694,086 in view of Grendel. Final Act. 3.
On October 11, 2019, an amendment was submitted in Application
14/694,086 amending claim 21 to add the limitations of claim 26 and
canceling claim 26. Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 21, as well as
claims 22–25 depending from claim 21, of Application 14/694,086 have
changed since the Examiner’s Final Action and Answer in the present
application. In light of this change in circumstances, we decline to reach this
rejection, and leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection is still proper.

2 In the detailed explanation of this rejection, the Examiner also cites Razzell
as evidence that it was “known in the art to create a hollow stud to provide
some cooling for the combustor,” but does not explicitly apply this finding
in articulating why it would have been obvious to modify Pidcock to arrive
at the claimed subject matter. See Final Act. 7, 9.
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

4
Rejection II—Indefiniteness
Appellant does not present any substantive arguments contesting the
rejection of claims 1–3, 8–13, 16, 17, and 21–24 as indefinite. See Appeal
Br. 8–13. Rather, Appellant simply reproduces the amendments to the
claims that were submitted in an attempt to overcome this rejection in an
Amendment filed May 29, 2018, subsequent to the Final Action, and were
denied entry by the Examiner. Id.; see Advisory Act. 1. Accordingly, we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 8–13, 16, 17, and 21–24 as
indefinite. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the
Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on appeal); see
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (2015) (“An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be
taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an
amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office”).
Rejection III—Obviousness: Claims 1–3, 8, 11–13, 16, and 21–24
Claims 1–3, 11–13, and 21–24
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Pidcock discloses a heat
shield (fourth annular wall 52) comprising an attachment stud (threaded stud
72) extending from a cold side (radially outer surface 87). Final Act. 6. The
Examiner found that Pidcock does not discloses that the attachment stud is
partially hollow with a cooling air passage along a central axis, a closed end
about flush with the cold side, and a plurality of stud film cooling holes
transverse to the central axis and in communication with the cooling air
passage. Id.
The Examiner found that Grendel teaches a partially hollow
attachment stud (post, set screw, or cooling grub 48) comprising a cooling
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

5
passage (cooling air duct 22) along a central axis (longitudinal axis 21) with
a closed end sending cooling air to the cold side, and a plurality of stud film
cooling holes (outlet ducts 52a, 52b) transverse to the central axis in
communication with the cooling air passage. Final Act. 6. The Examiner
determined it would have been obvious to modify Pidcock by providing
cooling passages in stud 72 as taught by Grendel “for the purpose of sending
cooling air to the heat shield.” Id. at 6–7.
Appellant argues that Grendel’s cooling grub 48 “does not even touch
the cold side . . . 36 of the heat shield tile 35,” thereby “reinforc[ing] that the
grub screw provides no attachment capability.” Appeal Br. 15–16 (emphasis
omitted). Thus, Appellant submits that Grendel’s grub 48 is “simply not an
attachment stud of any sort commensurate with the arrangement of
Pidcock.” Id. at 15. Therefore, according to Appellant, there is “no
motivation, suggestion, or reason to combine Pidcock . . . in view of Grendel
. . . as proposed.” Id. at 16.
We appreciate Appellant’s point that Grendel’s tile holders 38, 39,
rather than cooling grub 48, attach heat shield tile 35 to supporting structure
34. See Grendel 7:2–4; Fig. 5. Grendel’s cooling grub 48 is screwed into
cooling air passage 50 of supporting structure 34 to provide a passage for
cooling air for cooling supporting structure 34. Grendel 7:19–43. In
particular, cooling air enters cooling air duct 22, which extends in the
direction of longitudinal axis 21, in Grendel’s cooling grub 48 and then
flows through outlet ducts 52a, 52b, which extend laterally from cooling air
duct 22, in directions 53a, 53b into interspace 46 between heat shield 35 and
supporting structure 34. Id. 7:36–40. Grendel teaches that “[t]his permits
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

6
particularly effective cooling of the supporting structure” while avoiding
“impingement cooling of the heat shield tile 35.” Id. 7:42–44.
Although Grendel’s cooling grub does not contact the heat shield tile,
and does not function to fasten the heat shield to the supporting structure,
Grendel shows that it was known to provide cooling air to the interspace
between a heat shield and supporting structure by passing cooling air
through a longitudinal passage and transverse passages in a stud extending
into the interspace between the heat shield and the supporting structure.
Pidcock comprises such a stud, in the form of threaded stud 72 formed
integrally with heat shield tile 52A or 52B, for fastening the heat shield tile
to the supporting structure (third annular wall 50). See Pidcock, Figs. 4, 5.
Further, Pidcock discloses passing cooling air through apertures and a bore
in a washer in the fastener structure and around the circumference of the stud
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the stud until the cooling air turns to flow
laterally relative to the longitudinal axis of the stud in the space between the
heat shield and the supporting structure. See id. 6:33–52; 7:1–20; 7:51–8:15;
Figs. 4, 5.
In light of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have readily appreciated the applicability of the teachings of Grendel to
Pidcock. In particular, Grendel teaches an alternative manner of passing
cooling air from outside the supporting structure into the interspace between
the heat shield and supporting structure, via the stud fastened to the
supporting structure, to cool both the stud and the supporting structure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
to provide a cooling air passage in Pidcock’s stud 72, along the longitudinal
axis thereof and open at the threaded end of stud 72, and transverse cooling
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

7
air ducts extending radially outwardly from a closed end of the cooling air
passage near outer surface 87 of tile 52A or 52B to direct cooling air axially
and circumferentially with respect to the axis of the combustion chamber for
heat removal. See Pidcock 7:14–20; 8:1–5 (disclosing the flow of coolant
turning to flow circumferentially and/or axially with respect to the axis of
the combustion chamber when the coolant impinges upon outer surface 87 of
the tile for further heat removal). Such a cooling air path through Pidcock’s
stud could be either in place of or in addition to the cooling air path provided
through Pidcock’s washer and around the circumference of the stud, and,
like the cooling air path that Pidcock discloses through the washer and
around the circumference of the stud, would provide cooling to both the stud
and the supporting structure.
Appellant argues that, by disclosing air flowing through the washer
and then along stud 72, Pidcock “provides a significantly different solution,
which,” according to Appellant, “teaches away from utilization of a hollow
stud thus undermining any potential motivation for combination with
Grendel.” Appeal Br. 18. This argument is not convincing. 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). Appellant does not direct our attention to any
disclosure in Pidcock that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages
providing a cooling air passage through the stud.
Appellant also asserts that “it is a main feature of Pidcock . . . to
utilize flow through the washer but along the stud 72.” Appeal Br. 18
(referring to Pidcock’s flow through the washer and along the stud as “U-
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

8
shaped cooling flow”). Appellant contends that modifying Pidcock’s
fastener to be hollow as proposed by the Examiner “would ruin the goal of
airflow through the washer but along the fastener 72” and would render
Pidcock unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id. at 18–19.
Appellant does not direct our attention to any disclosure in Pidcock
that indicates that the particular flow path through the washer and along the
stud in a U-shaped path as illustrated in Figures 3–5 is critical to achieving
the intended purpose of Pidcock. Pidcock discloses that “[i]n order to
maximise [sic] the operating life of the tiles the studs must be adequately
cooled by a cooling film on the inner surface of the tiles and by cooling flow
on the outer surface of the tiles.” Pidcock 2:24–27. As discussed above,
providing in Pidcock’s stud a cooling air flow path through a passage along
the longitudinal axis and lateral cooling ducts extending radially outwardly
from the passage to direct cooling air on the outer surface of the tiles would
achieve this objective. Moreover, the Examiner appears to propose
providing the flow passage through the stud as a complement to the cooling
arrangement of Pidcock. Ans. 4. In either case, whether the flow passage
through the stud is in place of or in addition to the cooling arrangement with
flow through the washer and along the circumference of the stud, Appellant
does not persuade us that adding a flow passage through the stud would
render Pidcock unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
For the above reasons, Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 11–13, and 21–24, for
which Appellant does not present any separate arguments and which thus
fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

9
Claims 8 and 16
In contesting the rejection of claims 8 and 16, Appellant argues that
“there is simply no disclosure as to how the plurality of stud film cooling
holes could be arranged in a radial spoke pattern while maintaining the U-
turn flow pattern through the washer but along the fastener 72.” Appeal
Br. 19. This argument appears to be predicated on Appellant’s assertion that
the U-turn flow through the washer but along the fastener is critical to
achieving the intended purpose of Pidcock and, thus, fails to apprise us of
error for the reasons discussed above. Further, the Examiner states that
“modification of Pidcock with [the] radial spoke pattern of Grendel does not
require disruption of the airflow pattern taught by Pidcock” because “the
stud film cooling holes of Grendel could be provided at the base of the stud
taught by Pidcock and/or the stud film cooling holes of Grendel could be
provided through the radial fins of Pidcock.” Ans. 4. According to the
Examiner, “[e]ither of these would complement the cooling arrangement of
Pidcock with additional cooling airflow as needed.” Id. at 4–5.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection IV—Obviousness: Claims 9 and 17
In contesting the rejection of claims 9 and 17, Appellant essentially
reiterates the argument asserted against the rejection of claims 8 and 16. See
Appeal Br. 19 (contending that “there is simply no rationale disclosed as to
how a spiral pattern could be arranged while maintaining the U-turn flow
pattern through the washer but along the fastener 72 as discussed above”).
This line of argument is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above and,
likewise, fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 9 and 17.
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

10
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection V—Obviousness: Claim 10
In rejecting claim 10, which recites that “said heat shield is additively
manufactured,” the Examiner found that Pidcock “is silent regarding
wherein the heat shield is additively manufactured.” Final Act. 11.
However, the Examiner found that Hucker discloses additively
manufacturing a heat shield and, further, that Hucker teaches that doing so
reduces “the number of assembly operations required to attach the
component to a wall.” Id. (citing Hucker ¶ 40). The Examiner determined it
would have been obvious “to modify Pidcock as modified by Grendel, by
creating the heat shield via additive manufacturing, as taught by Hucker, for
the purpose of reducing the number of assembly operations required to
attach the component to a wall.” Id. at 12 (citing Hucker ¶ 101).
Appellant argues that “there is simply no rationale in any of the cited
references to additively manufacture the component” and asserts that, “[i]n
fact, the essentially standard hardware would not be readily amenable to
additive manufacturing.” Appeal Br. 19–20.
Appellant’s argument does not address, much less specifically attack,
the rationale articulated by the Examiner, and gleaned from the teachings of
Hucker, for making the modification. The Examiner reasoned that creating
Pidcock’s heat shield by additive manufacturing would reduce the number of
assembly operations required to attach the heat shield to a wall, and this
rationale was derived directly from the teachings of Pidcock. See Final
Act. 11–12. Specifically, Hucker teaches that forming a heat shield tile with
an integrated nut by additive manufacturing is advantageous, and can be
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

11
applied to any component for attaching to any wall, because it “reduc[es] the
number of assembly operations required to attach the component to a wall,
[and removes] the need for captive fasteners.” Hucker ¶¶ 101–102. A
person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that
these benefits would be similarly applicable to forming Pidcock’s heat shield
tile, with its integrally formed threaded studs, by additive manufacturing.
Appellant does not provide any evidence or technical reasoning to
support the assertion that Pidcock’s heat shield structure would not be
readily amenable to additive manufacturing. Thus, the assertion amounts to
unsupported attorney argument and is entitled to little, if any, weight. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which we, thus, sustain.
Appeal 2019-003278
Application 14/694,106

12
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–13, 16,
17
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting;
Application
14/694,086, Grendel

1–3, 8–13,
16, 17, 21–
24
112(b) Indefiniteness 1–3, 8–13,
16, 17, 21–24

1–3, 8, 11–
13, 16, 21–
24
103 Pidcock, Grendel 1–3, 8, 11–
13, 16, 21–24

9, 17 103 Pidcock, Grendel,
Maeda
9, 17
10 103 Pidcock, Grendel,
Hucker
10
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 8–13,
16, 17, 21–24

TIME PERIOD FOR 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