Ex Parte Xu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

14800792 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/800,792 07/16/2015 JinquanXu
54549 7590 11/02/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
77095US2;
67097-3009US1
1087
EXAMINER
WONG,ELTONK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINQUAN XU, ATUL KOHLI, DOMINIC J. MONGILLO,
GLENN LEVASSEUR, and MARK F. ZELESKY
Appeal 2018-001147
Application 14/800, 792
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
United Technologies Corporation ("Appellant") 1 appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23,
which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 1; Final Act. 1 (Office
Action Summary). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
United Technologies Corporation is the applicant, as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001147
Application 14/800, 792
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to "cooling holes for use in gas
turbine engine components." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 17 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A gas turbine engine component providing a cooling
hole, the component comprising:
a metering section extending within said component, said
metering section comprising:
a convex first surface with a first end and a second
end·
'
a concave second surface with a first end and a
second end; and
a first arcuate channel connecting said first end of
said convex first surface and said first end of said
concave second surf ace and a first dimension defined as
a distance between said first end of said convex first
surface and said first end of said concave second surface,
wherein said dimension is smaller than a diameter of said
first arcuate channel.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Ahmad
Mongillo
US 2005/0106028 Al
US 8,850,828 B2
2
May 19, 2005
Oct. 7, 2014
Appeal 2018-001147
Application 14/800, 792
REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1-23 stand
rejected on the basis of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-10 of Mongillo in view of Ahmad.
Final Act. 3-7.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claims 1-23 on the basis of obviousness-type double
patenting, the Examiner explained that, "[a]lthough the claims [of Mongillo
and the instant application] are not identical, they are not patentably distinct
from each other because the application claims [are] broader in some terms
and further, include[] other limitations that are obvious in view of Ahmad."
Final Act. 6. The Examiner found that "Ahmad shows that arcuate
channels (53) may be used in thermal relief slots (51) for the blade of a gas
turbine engine (Figure 3)" in order to "reduc[ e] the amount of thermal stress
the slots experience." Id. (citing Ahmad ,r 29); see also id. (explaining that
"[t]here are known methods in the art to decrease the thermal stress
experienced in a narrow comer, such as rounding out the comer or providing
an arcuate channel through said comer"). The Examiner concluded that it
would have been obvious to modify the cooling hole encompassed by
Mongillo' s claims "such that the narrow comers of the crescent had arcuate
channels, since the arcuate channels would reduce the amount of thermal
stress experienced by the comers." Id. at 6-7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection is unsupported because
"there is nothing within Ahmad that would suggest moving the shape of its
holes into the '828 patent claim device." Appeal Br. 3. According to
3
Appeal 2018-001147
Application 14/800, 792
Appellant, "nothing within Ahmad is shown as providing a benefit in a
cooling hole such as found in the '828 patent claims." Id. This argument is
not persuasive of error. Appellant appears to urge us to apply a strict
teaching, suggestion, or motivation ("TSM") test for obviousness. Rigid
application of the TSM test was expressly disavowed by the Supreme Court
in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,415,419 (2007).
Further, Appellant's argument does not address the Examiner's articulated
reasoning for the conclusion of obviousness. As discussed above, the
Examiner articulated adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings for
modifying the cooling hole encompassed by Mongillo' s claims to have
arcuate channels at the comers where the convex and concave surfaces meet.
See Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner also explains that,
[b ]ecause the comers are sharp, they then result in extremely
small curvatures that are prone to thermal stress. It is generally
known in the art that one method of reducing the thermal stress
is by replacing the small curvatures with a widened circular
portion, as done and explained with circular portion (53) of
Ahmad [0029].
Ans. 2-3. In this regard, Appellant does not specifically address or identify
fault in the reasoning articulated by the Examiner in support of the
conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant argues that "the Examiner provides no rationale to meet the
relationship between the dimension and the diameter," and "Ahmad does not
appear to have any such structure." Appeal Br. 3. Appellant asserts that
"Ahmad does not have a convex first surface or a concave second surface,"
and "[ n ]either of Ahmad nor Mongillo disclose[ s] a first dimension as
defined by the claims." Reply Br. 2. These arguments are unpersuasive.
The Examiner relied on Mongillo for teaching a convex first surface and a
4
Appeal 2018-001147
Application 14/800, 792
concave second surface. See Final Act. 4, 6. The Examiner relied on
Ahmad only as evidence that it was known in the art to use arcuate channels
to decrease thermal stress in narrow comers. See id. at 6-7; Ans. 2-3. Thus,
the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Mongillo and Ahmad.
Appellant's allegations of differences or shortcomings within each of
Mongillo and Ahmad individually are not responsive to the rejection
articulated by the Examiner and thus do not apprise us of error. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981)) (nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures).
Moreover, with respect to the claimed relationship between the first
dimension and the diameter of the arcuate channel, the Examiner explains
that "[t]his is an implicit relationship from the modification to provide a
widened circular hole on the ends of the cooling hole taught by Mongillo."
Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, "[i]f dimension D1 were larger than the
diameter D of the arcuate channel, the resulting shape would not be
considered a 'widened circular hole' as taught by Ahmad." Id. In this
regard, Appellant's argument does not does not specifically address, let
alone persuasively refute, the Examiner's position that the claimed
dimensional relationship results from the proposed modification of Mongillo
based on Ahmad.
With respect to claims 2--4 and 11-16, which depend from claim 1,
the Examiner explained that these claims "provide narrower limitations
regarding the size, shape, and position of said arcuate channel, [and] Ahmad
does not expressly teach those limitations." Final Act. 7. However, the
5
Appeal 2018-001147
Application 14/800, 792
Examiner concluded that such features would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See id. The Examiner clarifies in the Answer that
"the claims regarding the sizes are implicit in the modification of Mongillo
by Ahmad." Ans. 3. The Examiner explains that, "while making the
modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the arcuate
channel must be of reasonable size," and "[h]aving too large of a diameter
would affect the cooling hole performance, hence [there is] a limit to the
range." Id. According to the Examiner, "[t]he claimed ranges are within the
reasonable dimensions to one of ordinary skill in the art." Id.
Appellant argues that "the Examiner does not cite to any reference to
support such assertions," but, "[i]n fact, Ahmad teaches that a larger radi[us]
of curvature results in reduced stresses." Reply Br. 2 (citing Ahmad ,r 16).
This argument is not convincing. Appellant does not persuasively explain
why a larger radius of curvature reducing stresses would somehow refute the
Examiner's reasoned position that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize the limits to the dimensional ranges. See Ans. 3. In other words,
Appellant's argument does not identify error in the Examiner's articulated
reasoning for concluding that the claimed features would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 2--4, Appellant also argues that "neither
Mongillo nor Ahmad discloses a second arcuate channel." Reply Br. 2. We
are unpersuaded by this argument, which is not responsive to the rejection
presented. As discussed supra, the Examiner did not rely on Mongillo or
Ahmad individually for teaching a second arcuate channel. Rather, the
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify the cooling hole encompassed by Mongillo' s claims to
6
Appeal 2018-001147
Application 14/800, 792
have arcuate channels in the corners (i.e., plural) of the crescent shape to
reduce thermal stresses. See Final Act. 6-7. Appellant does not address or
identify fault in the Examiner's articulated reasoning.
For the above reasons, Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner's rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1-23 on the basis of obviousness-type double patenting.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 on the
basis of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-10 of Mongillo in view of Ahmad.
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).
AFFIRMED
7