United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2019006967 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)

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.
14/812,723 07/29/2015 Kyle C. Lana 67097-3047PUS1;72531US02 1342
54549 7590 12/16/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
GRAVES, TIMOTHY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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 KYLE C. LANA and STEPHEN D. HADDOCK

Appeal 2019-006967
Application 14/812,723
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19. 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. 1.
Appeal 2019-006967
Application 14/812,723

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of inspecting gas turbine
airfoils for creep in the radial direction and untwist in the chord-wise
direction of the airfoil (Spec. ¶ 2).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of servicing an engine by measuring untwist in an gas
turbine engine airfoil, the method comprising:
mounting an airfoil in a fixture;
measuring first and second cooling holes on an exterior airfoil surface
of the airfoil;
determining untwist in a chord-wise direction of the airfoil based upon
the measurement;
evaluating the determination relative to reference information for the
airfoil;
outputting a part status based upon the evaluation; and
reinstalling the airfoil in the engine if airfoil has remaining usefulness
based upon the part status, or replacing the airfoil with a new airfoil if
the airfoil lacks remaining usefulness based upon the part status.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–7, and 9–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ward (US 7,493,809 B1, pat. Feb. 24, 2009)
in view of Hunik (US 2003/0063270 A1, pub. Apr. 3, 2003) and
Koonankeil (US 2007/0276629 A1, pub. Nov. 29, 2007).
2. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ward in view of Hunik, Koonankeil, and
Badami (US 2010/0114502 A1, pub. May 6, 2010).
Appeal 2019-006967
Application 14/812,723

3
Appellant argues the subject matter common to independent claims 1 and
10 only (Appeal Br. 4–6). We select claim 1 as representative of the group.
Claims 2–19 will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the obviousness
rejection are located on pages 7–9 of the Non-Final Office Action. The
Examiner finds that Ward teaches the subject matter of claim 1 except for
mounting an airfoil in a fixture and using cooling holes as measuring points
(Non-Final Act. 7–8). The Examiner finds that Hunik teaches cooling holes
can be used as measuring points (Non-Final Act. 8). The Examiner finds
that cooling holes are well known in the art for providing cooling of hot
parts (Non-Final Act. 8). The Examiner finds that the ordinarily skilled
artisan would have known to use cooling holes to cool hot turbine blades as
taught by Hunik (Non-Final Act. 8). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to incorporate Hunik’s scheme for using existing cooling
holes as natural reference points with Ward’s method of measuring
deformation in turbine blades in order to facilitate the electronic processing
and increase the accuracy of the measurement (Non-Final Act. 8).
The Examiner finds that Koonankeil teaches mounting an airfoil in a
fixture (Non-Final Act. 8). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use Koonankeil’s fixture to hold Ward’s and Hunik’s turbine
blades to provide repeatable locations of reference holes to increase
measurement efficiency and accuracy (Non-Final Act. 9).
Appellant argues there are no cooling holes in Ward’s structural
features and there is no reason in Ward to use cooling holes (Appeal Br. 4).
Appeal 2019-006967
Application 14/812,723

4
Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown that Hunik’s use of cooling
holes a measurement points would have improved the accuracy in
determining strain over Ward’s use of measurement points at corners used
by Ward (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant argues the Examiner’s conclusion
provides no substantive evidence or technical explanation as to why a skilled
artisan would have substituted Ward’s use of corners and edges as
measurement points for Hunik’s cooling holes as measurement points
(Appeal Br. 5). Appellant argues that Ward’s suggestion that unspecified
structural features could be measured does not render measurement of any
specific feature obvious (Appeal Br. 6).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, Hunik teaches that it was known
to use cooling holes in turbine blades as measurement points (¶ 29).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding that it was well known to
use cooling holes in gas turbines (Appeal Br. generally). Accordingly,
Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination
that it would have been obvious to include cooling holes in Ward’s gas
turbine to aid in cooling the blade. Hunik’s use of the cooling holes when
present as measuring points makes use of already present markings (¶¶ 29,
30). In other words, the use of cooling holes as measurement markings
saves the time and effort of providing separate measurement markings on the
gas turbine. Hunik teaches that using the cooling holes as reference points
in the imaging of the turbine blade is attractive because doing so facilitates
electronic processing of the data and locates the strain (creep) more
accurately (¶ 65). Accordingly, the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have
been obvious to use cooling holes as measurement markers to provide
Appeal 2019-006967
Application 14/812,723

5
greater accuracy and facilitate electronic processing of the data is supported
by Hunik’s teachings.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the accuracy of strain determination is
not tied to using cooling holes as reference points, the Examiner finds that
using the cooling holes as reference points would have facilitated electronic
processing of the data, which is not disputed by Appellant (Appeal Br. 5–6).
We find that the Examiner’s analysis is based upon the teachings of the
references and not based upon an improper “could have” standard as argued
by Appellant (Appeal Br. 5).
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s combination
of Ward, Hunik and Koonankeil is flawed because Hunik teaches away from
the removing the airfoil from the turbine for imaging (Reply Br. 2).
Appellant argues that the Hunik does not teach imaging while the blades are
stationary (Reply Br. 1–2). These arguments are presented for the first time
in the Reply Brief, which is improper. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). In any
event, Appellant’s untimely arguments are not persuasive because they
attack the references individually instead of addressing what the combined
teachings would have suggested. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). The Examiner finds that Ward and Koonankeil would have
suggested measuring the airfoil deformation after placing in a fixture (Non-
Final Act. 7–9). Hunik teaches that cooling holes maybe used as reference
points for the measuring process in lieu of using separately applied markers
(Non-Final Act. 8). The Examiner is not proposing to bodily incorporate
Hunik’s process into Ward’s process as Appellant contends. We are
unpersuaded.
Appeal 2019-006967
Application 14/812,723

6
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections over Ward
in view of Hunik and Koonankeil, and Ward in view of Hunik, Koonankeil
and Badami.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Prior Art  Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–18 103 Ward,
Hunik,
Koonankeil
1–7,
9–18

8, 19 103 Ward,
Hunik,
Koonankeil,
Badami
8, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–19

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