UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 24, 2020

14707409 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 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.
14/707,409 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