United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 11, 2022

2021003916 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2022)

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. 16/122,373 09/05/2018 Ken F. Blaney 67097-3839PUS1;103672US01 4637 54549 7590 02/11/2022 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER LAMBERT, WAYNE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2022 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 KEN F. BLANEY, PAUL M. LUTJEN, and THOMAS E. CLARK Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, 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 14-22. See Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2022). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Raytheon Technologies Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to a blade outer air seal support integrated with a vane platform.” Spec. ¶ 1. Apparatus claim 1 is the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below. 1. A gas turbine engine, comprising: a compressor section and a turbine section; said turbine section having at least one turbine rotor having a radially extending turbine blade and being rotatable about an axis of rotation, and at least one turbine vane; a blade outer air seal positioned radially outwardly of a radially outer tip of the turbine blade; and a structure having a blade outer air seal portion and a platform portion, the blade outer air seal portion mounting the blade outer air seal and the platform portion providing a platform of the at least one turbine vane, wherein a cooling air port extends through the structure between a blade outer air seal chamber and a vane chamber and is configured to deliver cooling air from the blade outer air seal chamber to the vane chamber. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Judson US 2,488,867 Nov. 22, 1949 Patterson US 3,966,354 June 29, 1976 Sifford US 3,990,807 Nov. 9, 1976 Bell et al. (“Bell”) US 4,017,207 Apr. 12, 1977 Cederwall et al. (“Cederwall”) US 4,668,162 May 26, 1987 Kelch et al. (“Kelch”) US 5,374,161 Dec. 20, 1994 Thompson US 5,423,659 June 13, 1995 Draskovich US 6,000,906 Dec. 14, 1999 Halliwell et al. (“Halliwell”) US 6,863,495 B2 Mar. 8, 2005 Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 3 Lucas et al. (“Lucas”) US 6,899,518 B2 May 31, 2005 Schiavo et al. (“Schiavo”) US 8,292,580 B2 Oct. 23, 2012 Lamusga et al. (“Lamusga”) US 2015/0044049 A1 Feb. 12, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 12, 14, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford and Patterson. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford and Halliwell. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford and Judson. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford, Cederwall, and Thompson. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford and Kelch. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford and Lamusga. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford, Lamusga, and Schiavo. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford, Lucas, and Bell. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sifford and Draskovich. Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 4 ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1-3, 12, 14, 19, and 21 as unpatentable over Sifford Appellant argues these claims together. See Appeal Br. 3-4. We select independent claim 1 for review with the remaining dependent claims (i.e., claims 2, 3, 12, 14, 19, and 21) standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Claim 1 recites, “a structure having a blade outer air seal portion” and also recites “a vane chamber.” Claim 1 further recites that “a cooling air port extends through the structure . . . and is configured to deliver cooling air from the blade outer air seal chamber to the vane chamber.” The Examiner finds that “a prima facie case of obviousness is established in the combination of different embodiments relating to the prior art Sifford.” Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner relies upon the Figure 2 embodiment of Sifford for teaching many of the structural aspects of claim 1, but relies on the Figure 1 embodiment of Sifford to teach “an alternative to flow from the vane to seal as seen in [F]igure 2 to flow [instead] from seal to vane as seen in [F]igure 1.” Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 3-4. To be clear, the Examiner is modifying the Figure 2 embodiment of Sifford by “routing the flow from 51 to flow to 18A and out its trailing edge (flow as taught in the embodiment of [F]igure 1).” Ans. 5. The Examiner’s reasoning for doing so is “to provide for radial movement between the mounted components and provide cooling to the vane.” Final Act. 6; Ans. 4 (both referencing Sifford 3:30-32; Fig. 1); see also Sifford 1:48-50 (“A further object of this invention is to provide cooling means in the blade tip shroud to further aid in eliminating shroud warping.”). Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 5 Appellant contends that “the Examiner has not provided any reason one would make the proposed modification.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant contends that the cited portion of Sifford (i.e., Sifford 3:30-32) “does not support [the Examiner’s] rationale.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant, instead, references a different portion of Sifford contending that “Sifford discloses controlling contraction and expansion of the components by . . . controlling the materials used.” Appeal Br. 3 (referencing Sifford 1:34-47). In other words, Sifford (according to Appellant) controls contraction and expansion by controlling the materials used, not by cooling such material as expressed above. Appellant is only addressing a part of the teachings of that alternate citation to Sifford, i.e., Sifford 1:34-47. In this citation, Sifford indeed teaches that “the vane can have its response rate adjusted by changing its heat transfer convection rate” and that “this can be done by controlling the material of the support and its shielding.” Sifford 1:39-42. However, what Appellant disregards is that this cited section of Sifford also states that such control can also be undertaken by “cooling.” Sifford 1:41-42; see also Ans. 4, 5 (the latter identifying further support for “cooling” at Sifford 1:48- 58). These teachings by Sifford (that reference “cooling”) reinforce and buttress the Examiner’s reason to combine Sifford’s embodiments as expressed above. In other words, Appellant’s attempt to direct attention to another portion of Sifford focusing on the material used does not refute or undercut the Examiner’s reason to combine based on Sifford’s “cooling” teachings (see above), but instead, further fortifies the Examiner’s reasoning. We, thus, are not persuaded the Examiner erred by failing to provide a Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 6 reason to make the proposed modification, as Appellant asserts. See Appeal Br. 3. Appellant also contends that “the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Sifford and render that reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant supports this assertion stating that “[t]he proposed modification would change the direction of fluid flow” and that “[a]ltering the flow of this fluid would change the principle of operation of the arrangement of Sifford.” Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2. The Examiner’s proposed modification would change the direction of fluid flow to now exit upon upstream vane 18A rather than by-pass this vane and exit onto adjacent and downstream blade 42A.2 However, Appellant does not explain how this re-routed upstream exit location for the cooling fluid would preclude any cooling of immediately downstream blade 42A. See Sifford Fig. 2. The Examiner is altering the location of the cooling flow’s exit, not eliminating the flow altogether. In other words, this re- routed exiting flow would still pass over both blade 42A and its associated blade outer air seal 39 as depicted in the Figure 2 embodiment. See also Ans. 4 (addressing “cooling of the BOAS [blade outer air seal]”). Consequently, Appellant’s contention that the Examiner’s modification of Sifford’s Figure 2 embodiment would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose is not persuasive of Examiner error. 2 As previously stated, the Examiner, addressing the Figure 2 embodiment, would “rout[e] the flow from 51 to flow to 18A and out its trailing edge (flow as taught in the embodiment of [F]igure 1).” Ans. 5. Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 7 Appellant further seeks to buttress this “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” argument by stating that the Examiner’s modification would not provide cooling to the blade tip shroud but would instead be “directing fluid away from the blade tip shroud.” Appeal Br. 4. We disagree because Sifford’s blade tip shroud (i.e., item 39) is immediately downstream the Examiner’s proposed exit, and thus, Appellant does not explain how such downstream structure would fail to be cooled by the ejection of cooling fluid immediately upstream thereof. Appellant further contends that “[t]he Examiner has not pointed to anything in Sifford that discloses cooling to the vane.” Reply Br. 2. However, Appellant is wholly ignoring Sifford’s Figure 1 embodiment which clearly depicts a cooling flow passing out of shroud segment 98 and onto vane 80 and its associated shroud segment 84. Thus, Appellant’s contention is not persuasive. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 12, 14, 19, and 21 as being unpatentable over Sifford. We sustain their rejection. The rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Sifford and Patterson The Examiner relies on the additional teachings of Patterson for disclosing the additional limitations of dependent claim 4. See Final Act. 6. Appellant contends that modifying Sifford as expressed by the Examiner “would change the principle of operation of the base reference.” Appeal Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2. Appellant does not explain how arranging the recited second support member at a radially innermost portion of the structure (i.e., the claim 4 limitation), which Appellant does not dispute is taught by Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 8 Patterson, will impede the cooling flow of the modified Sifford structure as discussed above. To be clear, Appellant does not explain how such cooling flow would no longer be directed “to the cooling tip” (understood to reference a cooling of the blade’s tip). Appeal Br. 5. We are not appraised of Examiner error on this point for the same reasons discussed above. See Ans. 6. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as being obvious in view of Sifford and Patterson. The rejection of claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Sifford and Halliwell Appellant only states that “[t]he addition of the teachings of Halliwell does not cure the above noted deficiencies with respect to Sifford and base claim 1.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over Sifford and Halliwell. The rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Sifford and Judson Appellant contends that “[t]he addition of the teachings of Judson does not cure the above noted deficiencies with respect to Sifford and base claim 1.” Appeal Br. 5. This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because we are not aware of any deficiency in the teachings of Sifford. Appellant also contends that “the Examiner has not established that the proposed modification would be an obvious matter of design choice.” Appeal Br. 5; see also Final Act. 11. Appellant contends that “Sifford does not have an air port as claimed, and thus the structure of Sifford performs differently from the claimed attachment member.” Appeal Br. 5. Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 9 First, as noted above, Appellant does not explain how modified Sifford fails to have the air port as claimed. Second, regarding the orientation and location of the recited attachment member, the Examiner relies on Judson for such positional teachings stating that “it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the attachment member of Sifford” in such a manner. Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 7. Appellant does not dispute Judson’s teachings, only that Sifford’s modified structure “performs differently.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant’s Specification states that Appellant’s attachment member 124 is “for attachment to the engine.” Spec. ¶ 44; see also Spec. Figs. 4, 5. Sifford’s corresponding attachment member 65 (see Final Act. 10) is expressed as able to “axially position the vane and shroud assembly” with respect to Sifford’s engine. Sifford 4:35-38. Judson’s corresponding attachment member 39 (see Final Act. 10) is described as “secured by bolts” to both flange 42 and ring member 43. Judson 3:74-4:1. Appellant does not explain how either of these teachings regarding Sifford’s and Judson’s components are not likewise associated with “attachment to the engine” or that, somehow, these members “perform[] differently” as asserted by Appellant. Appeal Br. 5. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable over Sifford and Judson. Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 10 The rejections of (a) claims 9-11 as unpatentable over Sifford, Cederwall, and Thompson; (b) claim 15 as unpatentable over Sifford and Kelch; and, (c) claims 16 and 18 as unpatentable over Sifford and Lamusga Appellant merely asserts, for each rejection, that “[t]he addition of the teachings of [Cederwall, Thompson, Kelch and/or Lamusga] does not cure the above noted deficiencies.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error on these points. We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 9-11, 15, 16, and 18 for the reasons expressed above. See also Final Act. 11-15. The rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Sifford, Lamusga, and Schiavo Claim 17 is directed to the use of a certain material (i.e., “the vane is a ceramic matrix composite material”). The Examiner relies on Schiavo for such teachings and provides a reason for its combination with Sifford and Lamusga. See Final Act. 16; see also Ans. 8. Appellant contends, “the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of the base reference” because “Sifford discloses that the material of the vane is important.” Appeal Br. 6. Hence, using Schiavo’s composite material would “alter[] the thermal expansion of the vane, and thus the position of the blade tip shroud.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3. However, on the point of choosing a suitable material, we have been instructed that “selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put into the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. It is not invention.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 335 (1945). Even presuming the new material has a different thermal expansion coefficient, we have been instructed that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 11 a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art of gas turbine engines, and especially turbine engine vanes, (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2) would be expected to be aware of different thermal coefficients associated with different materials, whether for vanes or otherwise. However, Appellant appears to be treating such a skilled person as an “automaton,” which a skilled person is certainly not. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. In summation, we are not persuaded that a skilled person in this field would be unaware of the differences in expansion between vanes of different material, nor are we persuaded that such a person would fail to position the blade tip shroud accordingly. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as being obvious over Sifford, Lamusga, and Schiavo. The rejections of (a) claim 20 as unpatentable over Sifford, Lucas, and Bell; and, (b) claim 22 as unpatentable over Sifford and Draskovich Appellant merely asserts, for each rejection, that “[t]he addition of the teachings of [Lucas, Bell, and/or Draskovich] does not cure the above noted deficiencies.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error on these points. We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 20 and 22 for the reasons expressed. See Final Act. 16-18. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22 is affirmed. Appeal 2021-003916 Application 16/122,373 12 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 12, 14, 19, 21 103 Sifford 1-3, 12, 14, 19, 21 4 103 Sifford, Patterson 4 5, 6 103 Sifford, Halliwell 5, 6 7 103 Sifford, Judson 7 9-11 103 Sifford, Cederwall, Thompson 9-11 15 103 Sifford, Kelch 15 16, 18 103 Sifford, Lamusga 16, 18 17 103 Sifford, Lamusga, Schiavo 17 20 103 Sifford, Lucas, Bell 20 22 103 Sifford, Draskovich 22 Overall Outcome 1-7, 9-12, 14-22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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) (2022). AFFIRMED