UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

2019006572 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
15/100,413 05/31/2016 Daniel A. SNYDER 67097-2786PUS1;74599US02 1428
54549 7590 10/02/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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 DANIEL A. SNYDER and JEFFREY S. BEATTIE
__________

Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, 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 1–13 and 16–22. Claims 14 and 15
have been canceled. 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 Raytheon
Technologies Corporation. See Update to Real Party in Interest, filed Apr.
23, 2020.
Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to a gas turbine engine, and more
particularly to a gas turbine engine rotor blade having a platform cooling
passage.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 13, and 16 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A rotor blade, comprising:
a platform defining a gas path surface and a non-gas path
surface opposed to said gas path surf ace that each extend
between leading and trailing edges of said platform;
a root that extends radially inwardly from said non-gas
path surface;
an airfoil that extends radially outwardly from said gas
path surface of said platform and that extends in a chordwise
direction between a leading edge and a trailing edge;
a platform cooling passage extending inside of said
platform; and
said platform cooling passage including an inlet disposed
through said non-gas path surface of said platform and an outlet
disposed through a mate face of said platform, wherein said inlet
is an opening disposed through said non-gas path surface and is
located upstream from said leading edge of said airfoil, and said
opening is spaced apart from said leading edge of said platform.

Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
3
THE REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over De Cardenas (US 6,945,749 B2, issued
Sept. 20, 2005) and Torii (US 8,231,348 B2, issued July 31, 2012).
II. Claims 3 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over De Cardenas, Torii, and Halfmann (US 2012/0093649 A1, published
Apr. 19, 2012).
III. Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over De Cardenas, Torii, and Liang (US 8,641,377 B1, issued
Feb. 4, 2014).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Obviousness over De Cardenas and Torii
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of independent claims 13
and 16 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 17, 19, and 20 separate from
those presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–4.3 We select claim
1 as the representative claim, and claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19,
and 20 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
In regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that De Cardenas discloses a
rotor blade comprising a platform cooling passage (channel 30) including an

2 The following rejections have been withdrawn: (a) claim 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description
requirement (Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 4, dated Dec. 4, 2018); (b)
claims 1–13, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite (id. at 4–5
(claim 13 is not listed in the header but is discussed in the body of the
rejection)); and (c) claims 1–3, 8, 10, 16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lacy (US 2011/0223004 A1, published Sept.
15, 2011) (id. at 5). See Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) 3, dated July 25,
2019; Advisory Action (“Advisory Act.”) 2, dated Jan. 29, 2019.
3 Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Mar. 15, 2019.
Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
4
inlet (cooling hole 36) disposed through a non-gas path surface4 of a
platform 14 and an outlet (passage 110) disposed through an adjacent mating
face (side 42) of the platform 14. Final Act. 8–9 (citing De Cardenas Figs.
3, 7). The Examiner acknowledges that De Cardenas does not disclose that
its inlet (cooling hole 36) is located upstream from its leading edge 16 of
airfoil 12. Id. at 9. The Examiner, however, finds that Torii discloses an
inlet (convection cooling hole 017) located upstream from the leading edge
of its airfoil. Id. (citing Torii Fig. 5). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify De Cardenas’ rotor blade to
have its inlet located upstream from the leading edge of the airfoil, as
disclosed by Torii, “for the purpose of increasing the axial length of the
platform that is cooled.” Id.
Appellant contends that “the rejection fails to establish that one would
have been motivated to have made the Examiner’s proposed modification”
because:
(1) “[t]he cooling holes 36 of De Cardenas do not appear to extend to
an upper surface of the platform 14,” whereas Torii’s cooling hole 017 does
extend to the upper surface of its platform and
(2) “[t]he cooling hole 017 of Torii does not appear to be utilized to
convey cooling flow to a channel,” whereas De Cardenas’ cooling holes do
convey cooling flow to a channel. Appeal Br. 4.

4 We note that the term “non-gas path surface” suggests that no gas moves
along the surface. The Specification and figures disclose that a “cooling
fluid” F is communicated along a non-gas path surface 70 in which the non-
gas path surface is opposite to the gas-path surface 68 of platform 62. See
Spec. ¶¶ 20, 46, 50, 53, Fig. 2. We thus construe the term “non-gas path
surface” as a surface opposite to the gas-path surface of a platform, rather
than a surface in which gas does not move along.
Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
5
These arguments are unpersuasive in that they do not address the
rejection as set forth by the Examiner. The Examiner relies on Torii solely
for disclosing the location of its cooling hole 017 in relation to the leading
edge of the airfoil, rather than for disclosing a cooling channel separate from
cooling hole 017. See Final Act. 9; Ans. 4–5. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Further, Appellant appears to be arguing that once
some modification of De Cardenas is made based on a bodily incorporation
of one or more specific teachings in Torii, such as having the inlet upstream
from the leading edge of the airfoil, further modification is additionally
needed to result in the invention set forth in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4. One
of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common
sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result
in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (“the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Furthermore, the test for
obviousness is not, whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. “It is well-
established that a determination of obviousness based on the teachings from
multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
elements.” See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. (“The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference. . . .”).
Appellant contends that the rejection is merely based on
“‘demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art,’ [which] is insufficient to establish prima facie obviousness.”
Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
6
Appeal Br. 4 (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)); see also Reply Br. 2.5
However, the Examiner does not merely base the rejection on
elements that are independently known––rather, the Examiner explains that
it would have been obvious to modify De Cardenas’ rotor blade to have its
inlet located upstream from the leading edge of the airfoil, as disclosed by
Torii, “for the purpose of increasing the axial length of the platform that is
cooled.” Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 5. Thus, the Examiner has articulated
sufficient reasoning, supported by a rational underpinning drawn from the
cited references, for the combination of De Cardenas and Torii. See KSR
Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, Appellant does not apprise us of
Examiner error.
Appellant contends that De Cardenas and Torii are not analogous art.
See Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant does not provide a reason for this bald statement. See id.
The Examiner correctly responds that “both references are directed towards
gas turbine engine platform cooling schemes and, thus, are analogous.” Ans.
5. In other words, we agree with the Examiner that De Cardenas and Torii
are in the same field of Appellant’s endeavor (gas turbine engine platform
cooling) and are thus, analogous art. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious over De
Cardenas and Torii. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of

5 Rely Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Sept. 3, 2019.
Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
7
claim 1. We further sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16,
17, 19, and 20, which fall with claim 1.
Rejection II – Obviousness over De Cardenas, Torii, and Halfmann
Claims 3 and 18 are argued together. See Appeal Br. 5. We select
claim 3 for review. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Claim 3 recites
“said inlet is fed with a cooling fluid communicated through a neck pocket
disposed in a neck of said root that extends from said platform.” Appeal Br.
9 (Claims App.; emphasis added). Claim 18 recites a similar limitation. Id.
at 11. The Examiner acknowledges that the combination of De Cardenas
and Torii fails to disclose this limitation and relies on Halfmann for
disclosing the missing limitation. Final Act. 13–14 (citing Halfmann Figure
2, noting delivery channel 240’ corresponds to the recited neck pocket).
Appellant contends that “[t]he rejection fails to establish that one
would have been motivated to have made the Examiner’s proposed
modification” because Halfmann “appears to disclose inlet 236 being fed
with the alleged cooling fluid from delivery channel 240’”6 but that the
independent claims require the inlet opening to be spaced apart from the
leading edge of said platform. Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3.
Again, Appellant’s argument does not address the rejection as set
forth by the Examiner and appears to rely on an improper bodily
incorporation argument similar to that discussed above. The Examiner
already finds that De Cardenas discloses an opening of the inlet spaced apart
from the lead edge of the platform (Final Act. 9) and relies on Halfmann for

6 Although not clear from this argument, Appellant appears to be asserting
that Halfmann discloses its inlet 236 as not being spaced apart from the
leading edge of platform 228. See Halfmann Fig. 2.
Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
8
disclosing a neck pocket (id. at 14). See also Ans. 6–7. Appellant does not
apprise us of Examiner error on this point.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as
obvious over De Cardenas, Torii, and Halfmann. We further sustain the
rejection of claim 18, which falls with claim 3.
Rejection III—Obviousness over De Cardenas, Torii, and Liang
Claims 6, 11, and 21:
Appellant does not provide substantive arguments as to the rejection
of claims 6, 11, and 21 and relies on the arguments presented for parent
claim 1. Appeal Br. 5–7. Accordingly, as we find no deficiencies in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6, 11, and 21 for reasons similar to those discussed above
for claim 1 as obvious over De Cardenas, Torii, and Liang.
Claims 7, 9, and 22:
Claim 7 recites “said outlet is positioned at said trailing edge of said
airfoil” and claim 9 recites “said outlet is positioned downstream from said
trailing edge of said airfoil.” Appeal Br. 9–10 (Claims App.; emphases
added). Claim 22 recites “a length of said passage is axially and
circumferentially aligned with said trailing edge of said airfoil such that said
passage passes under said trailing edge of said airfoil.” Id. at 11 (emphasis
added).
The Examiner acknowledges that the combination of De Cardenas and
Torii does not disclose the limitations of claims 7, 9, and 22, but finds that
Liang discloses these missing limitations. Final Act. 15–16, 18 (citing Liang
Figs. 5–6). With respect to claims 7 and 9, the Examiner concludes that it
Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
9
would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the rotor blade of De
Cardenas and Torii to have an outlet at the claimed position, as disclosed by
Liang “for the purpose of providing cooling flow to this particular location
in order to achieve a desired cooling effect.” Id. at 15–16.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale concerning achieving a
“desired cooling effect” is conclusory and without rational underpinning
because the Examiner’s rationale hinges only upon the result of the
combination of cited art. Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
This argument is unpersuasive. Liang’s objective is to provide a
“cooling circuit” for its platform. See Liang Abstract. We do not find it
unreasonable for the Examiner to assert that any portion of Liang’s cooling
circuit––the passages, outlets, and inlets thereof––are at a particular location
for the benefit of providing cooling to that particular location of the
platform. As the Examiner correctly responds, “the result of achieving a
desired cooling effect is inseparable from the reason for making the
combination of providing cooling flow to this particular location.” Ans. 8.
Appellant further argues that Liang’s feed holes 32 are “downstream
from a leading edge of the airfoil” and “[w]ere one to follow the teachings of
Liang, one would move” the inlet of De Cardenas downstream as well.
Appeal Br. 6.
Once again, Appellant’s argument does not address the rejection as set
forth by the Examiner and appears to rely on an improper bodily
incorporation argument similar to that discussed above. The Examiner
already finds that Torii discloses an inlet located upstream from the leading
edge of the airfoil (Final Act. 9) and relies on Liang for disclosing the above
recited features of claims 7 and 9 (id. at 15–16). See also Ans. 8–9.
Appeal 2019-006572
Application 15/100,413
10
With respect to claim 22, Appellant contends that the Examiner does
not show that the combination of references discloses the limitation “said
passage passes under said trailing edge of said airfoil.” Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner correctly responds that Liang’s Figure 5 shows cooling
channels 23 passing under the trailing edge of its airfoil––much in the same
manner as that of the cooling passage 88 shown in Appellant’s Figure 3. See
Ans. 9. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error on this point.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9, and 22 as obvious over De Cardenas,
Torii, and Liang.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
10, 12, 13,
16, 17, 19, 20
103 De Cardenas, Torii 1, 2, 4, 5,
8, 10, 12,
13, 16, 17,
19, 20

3, 18 103 De Cardenas,
Torii, Halfmann
3, 18
6, 7, 9, 11,
21, 22
103 De Cardenas,
Torii, Liang
6, 7, 9, 11,
21, 22

Overall
Outcome
1–13, 16–
22

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