UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 24, 202014707409 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/707,409 05/08/2015 Brandon W Spangler 77662US02 (14-264-2) 2254 52237 7590 04/24/2020 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. 900 Chapel St., Suite 1201 New Haven, CT 06510 EXAMINER LAMBERT, WAYNE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2020 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 BRANDON W SPANGLER Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LISA M. GUIJT, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, 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 1–7, 9–12, and 15–24. 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 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to cooled gas turbine components. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A film cooled component manufactured of a material that provides a thermal conductivity greater than 150 BTU (IT)- inch/hour/square foot/degrees F, comprising: a leading edge area and a trailing edge area; and a film hole region comprising a multiple of film holes proximate the leading edge area, the multiple of film holes provide a coverage between 15%–75% of the film hole region, each of said multiple of film holes spaced one to another to reduce a thermal gradient aft of said film hole region to below 200°F (93°C), wherein each of said multiple of film holes arranged to have a ligament distance between adjacent film holes greater than 0.050 in (1.27 mm).2 Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Chung US 2002/0164250 A1 Nov. 7, 2002 Burdgick US 6,506,013 B1 Jan. 14, 2003 Leahy US 6,640,547 B2 Nov. 4, 2003 Bunker US 8,672,613 B2 Mar. 18, 2014 2 The “ligament distance” is the distance between adjacent film hole edges. Spec. ¶ 51; Fig. 6. Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Burdgick, Bunker, and Leahy.3 II. Claims 17–20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Burdgick and Bunker. III. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Burdgick, Bunker, Leahy, and Chung. OPINION Rejection I–Burdgick, Bunker, and Leahy (claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, and 24) Appellant argues for the patentability of the claims subject to the first ground of rejection as a group. Appeal Br. 9. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and claims 2, 4–7, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, and 24 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Burdgick discloses many of the elements recited in claim 1, including a film hole region comprising multiple film holes 178. Final Act. 10–11 (citing Burdgick, Fig. 3). However, the Examiner finds Burdgick does not disclose (i) that the film holes provide a coverage between 15%–75% of the film hole region, and (ii) that the film holes are spaced from each other to reduce a thermal gradient of the film hole region to below 200°F. Id. The Examiner finds that, in light of 3 The rejection of claim 21 over Burdgick, Bunker, and Leahy is listed under a separate heading from the heading for the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9– 12, 15, 16, and 24. See Final Act. 28. Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 4 Burdgick’s teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found providing a film hole arrangement that meets these limitations an obvious matter of optimization. Id. 11–12 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); Burdgick 1:63–2:32, 6:54–7:14). Thus, the Examiner finds that Burdgick teaches that the coverage of the film holes and the general spacing arrangement are result-effective variables. The Examiner also finds that Burdgick fails to disclose that its film- cooled component comprises a material having a thermal conductivity greater than 150 BTU (IT)-inch/hour/square foot/degrees F. Final Act. 12. To address this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Bunker discloses such a material (specifically, molybdenum) in an analogous art. Id. (citing Bunker 4:14–27). The Examiner reasons that implementing this material in the aircraft component of Burdgick would have been the use of a known technique (in this case the use of a material molybdenum to form a film cooled component as taught by Bunker), to improve a similar devices (in this case the use of the molybdenum material to form the film cooled component of Burdgick so as to reduce temperatures the working component may reach) [and] an obvious extension of prior art teachings. Id. at 12–13 (citing KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Finally, the Examiner finds Burdgick does not teach that “each of said multiple of film holes [is] arranged to have a ligament distance between adjacent film holes greater than 0.050 in (1.27 mm).” Final Act. 12. To address this deficiency in Burdgick, the Examiner finds that Leahy teaches a film-cooled component including film holes 70 that reduce a thermal gradient and that the ligament spacing of these holes affects the thermal gradient of the component (i.e., that the ligament spacing is a result-effective Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 5 variable).4 Id. at 13 (citing Leahy 4:35–37). The Examiner reasons that implementing a ligament distance of greater than 0.050 inches, as recited in claim 1, would have been the application of a known technique (optimization of hole spacing) to improve a similar device in a similar way (tailoring cooling of the component). Id. (citing KSR Int’l. Co., 550 U.S. at 417). Appellant contends the Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to optimize the hole coverage area and hole ligament distance is in error because “[t]he optimized spacing for Burdgick, optimized spacing for Bunker, and optimized spacing for Leahy would necessarily be different.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts “[t]his Examiner proposed ‘modification of a modification’ is only performed by utilizing Appellant's invention as a blueprint” and “there is also no reason to combine Burdgick with Bunker to change the material and then also change the film cooling hole arrangement as proposed by the Examiner.” Id. at 10; see also Reply Br. 1–2. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. First, regarding the material from which the recited component is manufactured, the Examiner’s reasoning for implementing molybdenum (a known technique used to improve a similar product in the same way (see Final Act. 12–13)) in the component of Burdgick is supported by rational underpinnings.5 See Bunker 4:14–30. Appellant does not apprise us of any reason why the Examiner’s position on this point is incorrect. See Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 1–2. 4 The Examiner finds that Leahy explicitly discloses the use of a ligament distance of greater than 0.050 inches. Final Act. 13. 5 Appellant does not contest that molybdenum, as disclosed by Bunker, meets the requirement in claim 1 for a material with a conductivity “greater than 150 BTU (IT)-inch/hour/square foot/degrees F.” Indeed, Appellant lists molybdenum as an example of material that does so. Spec. ¶ 49. Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 6 Second, Burdgick teaches that high thermal gradients in its component can reduce the component’s life. “In some cases, with this kind of cooling scheme, the thermal gradient in the nozzle wall can reach very high levels, which can cause low LCF (Low Cycle Fatigue) life for local regions of the nozzle wall.” Burdgick 1:62–65. Burdgick addresses this problem by adding film cooling holes, stating, [t]he inventors have recognized, however, that by providing a small bleed of cooling media through suitably disposed openings in the airfoil wall of the otherwise closed loop cooling circuit, film cooling of the airfoil surface can be achieved to effectively increase the local LCF life in a manner that outweighs the potential efficiency loss. Id. 2:11–17; see also id. 2:29–39. Burdgick explains that the coverage of these cooling holes is adjustable to improve low cycle frequency cooling life (which is related to thermal gradients): Referring to FIG. 3, the disposition of . . . film cooling holes 178 embodying the invention is schematically shown. In the illustrated embodiment, the film cooling holes are defined in a substantially linear array extending radially along approximately one half the radial length of the airfoil 10, from the radially outer wall 12. Although the illustrated film cooling holes are defined along only a part of the radial length of the airfoil 10, it is to be understood that such a film cooling hole array may extend along a part of the length or along the entire length of its respective vane cavity, as deemed necessary or desirable to effect the cooling to improve LCF life. Burdgick 6:47–58 (bolding omitted, italicization added). Burdgick further explains, If deemed necessary or desirable, an additional array or arrays of film cooling holes may be defined to extend along the leading edge cavity and/or, in addition or in the alternative, one or more such arrays of film cooling holes may be defined in other(s) of Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 7 the cavities of the airfoil, depending upon the potential low LCF regions and the inevitable cost benefit analysis of the manufacturing complexity and efficiency considerations balanced with the resultant increase in LCF life. Id. 6:66–7:8. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Burdgick intends to reduce the thermal gradient in its component and that Burdgick recognizes the amount of film hole coverage as a variable that ultimately affects the amount of reduction in the thermal gradient of the component. Appellant does not apprise us of any reason this general teaching to reduce the thermal gradient of the component by cooling via the use of film holes would not be applicable to the component of Burdgick, even after modification to include molybdenum as proposed by the Examiner. In other words, contrary to Appellant’s argument that optimization of an arrangement for Burdgick would be different from optimization for the arrangement in Bunker (Appeal Br. 9), we see no reason Burdgick’s teaching to reduce the thermal gradient would be tied to the use of only non-molybdenum material. Rather, Burdgick’s teaching to reduce thermal gradient applies regardless of the material used. Appellant next argues, “[a]lternatively, even if the combination were proper, simply changing the material to molybdenum does not change the film cooling holes as already discussed by Burdgick[, and] the proposed combination, even if proper, simply fails to disclose or suggest the coverage and ligament distances as claimed in Appellant’s claims.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s argument on this point does not apprise us of Examiner error because it does not address the Examiner’s use of the teachings of Leahy. In other words, the Examiner does not simply change the material in Burdgick to molybdenum. Rather, to address the optimization of the Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 8 ligament distance, the Examiner refers to Leahy. See Final Act. 13. Appellant provides no persuasive argument as to why Leahy’s teachings that the spacing of cooling holes 70 can be adjusted as desired (Leahy 4:32–38; see also id. 3:16–20) would be inappropriate in the component disclosed by Burdgick, even when this component is modified to include molybdenum as proposed by the Examiner. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 4–7, 9–12, 15, 16, 21, and 24 fall with claim 1. Rejection II–Burdgick and Bunker (claims 17–20, 22, and 23) Appellant argues that “[claim 17] recites arranging a spacing between adjacent film holes proximate a leading edge area in pitch to reduce the cooling effectiveness proximate the film holes. This is counterintuitive. The teachings of the references, as interpreted by the Examiner, provide optimization to increase the cooling effectiveness.” Appeal Br. 11. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Leahy teaches that “[c]ooling holes 70 are spaced throughout panel assembly 45 in such a manner as to provide uniform cooling to panel assembly 45.” Leahy 4:32– 34 (bolding omitted, italicization added). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Leahy’s object is to provide uniform cooling, not merely maximum cooling. See also id. 3:17–20. Consequently, Appellant’s argument is based on an incorrect understanding of Leahy’s teachings. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. Appellant makes no separate arguments for claims 18–20, 22, and 23, and these claims fall with claim 17, from which they depend. Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 9 Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 10 Rejection III–Burdgick, Bunker, Leahy, Chung (claim 3) Appellant states, “the Examiner adds yet another reference which further supports Appellant’s contention that the Examiner is using improper hindsight reasoning.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant’s contention regarding the rejection of claim 3 is unavailing. Merely noting, as Appellant does, that the Examiner relies on an additional reference to address the requirements of a dependent claim does not identify error in the rejection. We sustain the rejection of claim 3. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–7, 9– 12, 15, 16, 21, 24 103 Burdgick, Bunker, Leahy 1, 2, 4–7, 9– 12, 15, 16, 21, 24 17–20, 22, 23 103 Burdgick, Bunker 17–20, 22, 23 3 103 Burdgick, Bunker, Leahy, Chung 3 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9–12, 15–24 Appeal 2019-004826 Application 14/707,409 11 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation