San Quach et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 12, 2019

15022356 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 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.
15/022,356 03/16/2016 San Quach 71806US02;
67097-2704PUS1
2011
54549 7590 09/12/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CHRISTENSEN, DANIELLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2019 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 SAN QUACH and THOMAS N. SLAVENS
____________

Appeal 2019-0023891
Application 15/022,3562
Technology Center 3700
____________

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

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1–10 and 13–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Nov. 2,
2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 29, 2019), the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 2, 2019), and the Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed June 22, 2018).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002389
Application 15/022,356

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that the “application relates to cooling a
tip of a gas turbine engine airfoil.” Spec. ¶ 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine component comprising:
an airfoil extending from a platform to a tip at an end of
said airfoil spaced from said platform;
said airfoil having a suction wall and a pressure wall, with
at least one channel extending toward said tip from said platform,
a plenum communicating with said at least one channel, and said
plenum flowing from said suction wall toward said pressure wall
at said tip to communicate with cooling holes near said pressure
wall; and
said plenum having a reduced cross-sectional area
between said suction wall and said pressure wall, and an
increased cross-sectional area downstream of said reduced cross-
sectional area, and within said airfoil.
Appeal Br. 4.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 and 13–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Liang3 in view of Leeke.4

3 Liang, US 7,530,789 B1, iss. May 12, 2009.
4 Leeke et al., US 6,592,330 B2, iss. July 15, 2003.
Appeal 2019-002389
Application 15/022,356

3
DISCUSSION
Claim 1–6 and 8–10
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Liang teaches a gas
turbine engine component as claimed except that Liang does not teach a
platform, for which the Examiner relies on Leeke. Final Act. 3. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Liang teaches an airfoil including “at
least one channel (21, 22, 31, 32)” and “a plenum (23, 33, 43)
communicating with said at least one channel,” flowing from the suction
side to the pressure side, and having a reduced cross-sectional area as
claimed.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error in these findings by
Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants first argue that “[t]he Examiner is reading the holes 43 as
being ‘reduced cross-sectional area,’ but the Liang holes 43 do not have an
increased cross-sectional area downstream of this reduced cross-sectional.”
Appeal Br. 2. We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner
does not rely on the hole 43 as the claimed area of the plenum with an
increased cross-sectional area. Rather, as the Examiner explains in the
Answer, the identified plenum consists of elements 23, 33, and 43, which are
shown to have a direction of cooling from 23 to 43 to 33 such that
element 33 is the area of increased cross-section claimed. See Ans. 3.
Appellants do not explain why this interpretation of Liang is incorrect.
In their reply, Appellants also indicate that the Examiner is using an
“unfair” interpretation of a plenum. Reply Br. 1. Here, Appellants discuss
only whether element 23 may be considered a plenum. We are not
persuaded of error. First, as noted above, the Examiner relies on a
Appeal 2019-002389
Application 15/022,356

4
combination of elements 23, 33, and 43 as the claimed plenum, and thus, it
is not entirely clear how Appellants’ arguments with respect to only one of
those elements are germane to the rejection before us. Second, Appellants
indicate only that element 23 is a portion of the same channel including
elements 21 and 22. But this argument does not explain why element 23
may not also be considered part of a plenum, as identified by the Examiner.
Finally, Appellants argue that “since leg 23 would appear to extend
for a radial distance as great as leg 22 it could hardly be called a plenum ‘at
said tip.’” Reply Br. 1. Appellants do not provide further explanation. The
fact that element 23 may extend the same distance as another element says
nothing about whether it may considered to be located at the tip of the
airfoil.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of this claim. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–6 and 8–10, which depend from
claim 1 and for which Appellants do not provide separate arguments.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further requires “wherein said at
least one channel is a plurality of suction wall channels.” Appeal Br. 5. The
Examiner finds that elements 31 and 32 are suction wall channels that are
part of the channel identified with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 5.
Appellants first argue that the identified channels 21, 22, 31, and 32 “each
communicate with different ‘plenum’ (23, 33, 43)” and “[t]hese are not
plural and also communicating with A plenum.” Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis
omitted); see also Reply Br. 2. We disagree for the reasons provided by the
Examiner. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that elements 21, 22,
Appeal 2019-002389
Application 15/022,356

5
31, and 32 form a channel and are in fluid communication with the identified
plenum 23, 33, and 43. Ans. 4. Liang discloses that elements 21 and 31 are
in fluid communication; elements 22 and 32 are in fluid communication;
elements 23, 43, and 33 are in fluid communication; and elements 21, 22,
and 23 are in fluid communication. Liang Fig. 1. Thus, one of ordinary skill
in the art may reasonable consider all these elements to be in fluid
communication. Therefore, without further explanation from Appellants, we
fail to see any error in the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 7.
Claim 13–20
Independent claim 13 recites substantially the same structure of an
airfoil as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4–5. The Examiner relies on
substantially the same findings in rejecting claim 13 as those presented with
respect to the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 5–6. Appellants rely on the
arguments addressed above with respect to both claims 1 and 7, which we
also find unpersuasive here. See Appeal Br. 2–3; see also Reply Br. 1–2.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13 for the reasons discussed
above. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 14–20, for which
Appellants do not present separate arguments.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–10 and 13–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED