Candelori, David J. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 8, 2020

14686979 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 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.
14/686,979 04/15/2015 David J. Candelori 67097-2928PUS1;75339US02 5328
54549 7590 01/08/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2020 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 DAVID J. CANDELORI and SAN QUACH

Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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, 3–8, 10–19, and 21. 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 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a gas turbine engine, and more
particularly to turbine blade tip cooling arrangements that may be
incorporated into a gas turbine engine.” Spec. ¶ 2. Apparatus claims 1, 10,
and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A blade for a gas turbine engine comprising:
an airfoil having a tip with first and second walls radially
extending to a terminal end surface at an outermost radial
extremity of the tip, the first and second walls respectively
adjacent to airfoil pressure and suction sides joined at leading
and trailing edges and terminating at the terminal end surface,
the first and second walls flush with an exterior airfoil surface
providing the airfoil pressure and suction sides, the tip providing
a recess having a depth from the terminal end surface of less than
40 mils (1.016 mm), the recess filled with a thermal barrier
coating, the recess without any cooling holes, wherein the
thermal barrier coating is generally flush with the terminal end
surface and extends to the first and second walls.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Tomita US 5,564,902 Oct. 15, 1996
Bunker US 6,179,556 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Updegrove et al
(“Updegrove”)
US 6,502.303 B2 Jan. 7, 2003
Halfmann et al.
(“Halfmann”)
US 6,974,308 B2 Dec. 13, 2005
Liang US 8,303,254 B1 Nov. 6, 2012
Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 2002/0090301 A1 July 11, 2002
Boury et al. (“Boury”) US 2007/0025857 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
Hada US 2010/0111704 A1 May 6, 2010
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

3
REJECTIONS
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112
(pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.2
Claims 1, 3–8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11, as far as they are definite and understood,
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Halfmann, Bunker,
and Liang.
Claims 5 and 6, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Halfmann, Bunker, Liang, and
Hada.
Claim 8, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Halfmann, Bunker, Liang, and Tomita.
Claim 12, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Halfmann, Bunker, Liang, and
Updegrove.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee,
Bunker, and Liang.
Claims 13, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Boury, Bunker, and Liang.
Claims 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Boury, Bunker, Liang, and Tomita.

2 As per the Examiner, “the rejections of claims 16–19 under 35 U.S.C.
[§] 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. [§] 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement, are withdrawn.” Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

4
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claim 10
as failing to comply with the written description requirement
The Examiner addresses “the last three lines” of independent claim 10
which “recite that the thermal barrier coating extends to ‘at least a portion of
the suction side.’” Final Act. 6. The Examiner understands “[t]he scope of
the underlined claim language” to include the barrier coating “extending
along the entire suction side 88.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner states that this
extension along the entirety of the suction side “is not disclosed in the
application as originally filed.” Final Act. 6. Appellant disagrees with the
Examiner’s rejection stating that the recited barrier coating extending along
“at least a portion of the suction side” “is shown in Figure 3A.” Appeal Br.
7. Appellant’s Figure 3A is replicated below.

The above enlarged perspective view from Appellant’s originally filed
application illustrates barrier coating 106 located within recess 100 and
extending along edge 108 from (near) pressure side to (far) suction side 86,
88 (not shown).
Our reviewing court has provided instruction that “drawings alone
may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by § 112.”
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

5
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Further,
“written description is about whether the skilled reader of the patent
disclosure can recognize that what was claimed corresponds to what was
described.” Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 745 F.3d 1180, 1191
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Additionally, and as referenced by Appellant (see Appeal
Br. 7), “[o]ur case law is clear that an applicant is not required to describe in
the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his
invention.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
2001).
In view of Appellant’s Figure 3A, and the above instructions from our
reviewing court, it is concluded that one skilled in the art would “recognize
that what was claimed corresponds to what was described.” See above.
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the claimed phrase “at least a
portion of” lacks written description support because, as per the Examiner,
there is no additional description of the barrier coating “extending along the
entire suction side 88.” Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
The rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 11, and 12
as being indefinite
The pertinent portion of claim 1 recites, “the first and second walls
respectively adjacent to airfoil pressure and suction sides joined at leading
and trailing edges and terminating at the terminal end surface.” The
Examiner finds that “[i]n amended claim 1, line 4, ‘and terminating’ is
unclear as to which element this refers to.” Final Act. 8. This is because
“[b]ased on the grammatical structure of the claim, this could refer to the
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

6
leading edge, the trailing edge, or the leading and trailing edge,” but notes
that “based on previous claim 2, ‘and terminating’ referred to the pressure
and suction sides.” Final Act. 8.
Appellant states that “and terminating” refers to the “sides” and not to
the “edges.” See Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that, grammatically
speaking, “[t]he leading and trailing edges are not the active nouns in the
phrase.” Appeal Br. 8. “Rather, the conjunction (‘and’) shows that the
phrase describes two features (‘joined at,’ and ‘terminating at’) of the
pressure and suction sides.” Appeal Br. 8. Further, “[t]he specification
states ‘[t]he pressure and suction sides terminate at the terminal end surface,’
but makes no analogous statement regarding the leading or trailing edges.”
Appeal Br. 8 (referencing Spec. ¶¶ 9, 22).
We agree with Appellant that a construction of this claim language
which is also consistent with Appellant’s Specification is a limitation
directed to certain walls being adjacent to certain sides, and it is these sides
that are “joined at” certain edges and also that terminate at an end surface.
In view of the above, and assisted by Appellant’s Specification in this
endeavor, we do not find Appellant’s use of “and terminating” to be
indicative of indefinite claim language. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 11, and 12 as being indefinite.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11
as unpatentable over Halfmann, Bunker, and Liang
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11 (i.e., all the claims)
together. See Appeal Br. 4–6. We select independent claim 1 for review,
with the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

7
Claim 1 recites a recess in the terminal end surface of a blade, with
“the recess filled with a thermal barrier coating . . . wherein the thermal
barrier coating is generally flush with the terminal end surface.” Emphasis
added. Appellant correctly states, “[a]ll words in a claim must be
considered.” Reply Br. 1 (referencing MPEP § 2143.03). Here, we are
instructed that words of approximation, such as “generally,” are descriptive
terms commonly used in patent claims to avoid mathematical precision or a
strict correlation with the specified parameter.3 See Anchor Wall Sys. v.
Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Thus, we understand the above limitation to recite a recess “filled” with a
coating, but whose coating is also “generally flush” with the terminal end
surface of the blade. In other words, the coating need not completely fill the
recess because “generally flush” allows for some difference between the
upper surface of the coating and the end surface of an adjoining non-
recessed blade portion.4
The Examiner primarily relies on Halfmann for disclosing the
limitations of claim 1, including a blade “tip providing an unnumbered
recess shown near 32” (and depicted in Figures 1 through 6 of Halfmann).
Final Act. 9. However, Halfmann does not disclose this recess “filled with a
thermal barrier coating” as recited. Final Act. 10. Liang is recited for this
teaching with the Examiner specifically identifying “thermal barrier
coating 31” in “recess 28” of Liang, both of which are depicted in Figure 4

3 “The claim term ‘generally flush’ is not an exact term, and allows some
degree of variation from being exactly flush.” Ans. 7.
4 Appellant’s Specification states, “the thermal barrier coating is generally
flush with the terminal end surface” and also states that it may be “radially
below” or “radially beyond” this terminal end surface. Spec. ¶¶ 16, 27.
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

8
thereof. Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 5, 6. Thereafter, the Examiner
provides a reason to combine Halfmann (as modified by Bunker) with the
teachings of Liang. See Final Act. 11, Ans. 8.
Appellant contends
it would not have been obvious to modify Halfmann in the way
proposed by the Examiner because the cited feature of Bunker is
a squealer pocket, and filling a squealer pocket with thermal
barrier coating until the coating was generally flush with the
terminal end surface would defeat its purpose as a squealer
pocket. In other words, if a squealer pocket is filled with thermal
barrier coating until the coating is generally flush with the
terminal end surface, the airfoil functionally does not have a
squealer pocket.
Appeal Br. 4; see also id. at 5. Although Appellant’s logic appears sound, it
behooves us to investigate “the cited feature of Bunker” (i.e., “a squealer
pocket”) referenced by Appellant above. Bunker teaches that a squealer
pocket improves “overall turbine efficiency” (Bunker 2:34–37) while also
teaching that the open depth of such a pocket (i.e., “a” or “b” in Bunker
Fig. 3) “is in the range between about 0.03 inches to about 0.3 inches.”
Bunker 3:51–56. For emphasis, 0.03 inches equates to 0.762 mm, or
approximately 1/32 of an inch. In view of the above, Appellant does not
explain how Bunker, by teaching a squealer pocket of such small depth, fails
to likewise disclose a squealer pocket that is also “generally flush” as
recited.
Clearly, Liang discloses a squealer pocket filled with a thermal barrier
coating (see Liang Fig. 4), but Liang fails to provide an indication of the
open depth of the pocket (neither does Halfmann). The Examiner addresses
this deficiency by noting that Bunker teaches the above recess range. See
Final Act. 11, Ans. 5, 8. The Examiner further notes that “[c]laim 1 does not
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

9
require that the measurement of the depth of the recess includes the thermal
barrier coating depth or thickness, as Appellant’s argument suggests.”5
Ans. 9. Instead, as claim 1 is understood, although the depth of the recess
may vary, the coating is to fill the recess to such an extent that the exposed
surface of the coating is “generally flush with the terminal end surface” of
the blade. Liang teaches filling a pocket while Bunker teaches an open
depth of such pocket.6 See Final Act. 10–11. As such, Appellant does not
explain how the cited combination fails to satisfy the above limitation, i.e.,
“the recess filled with a thermal barrier coating . . . wherein the thermal
barrier coating is generally flush with the terminal end surface” of the blade.
Appellant argues that “it would not have been obvious to use the
measurements taken from Bunker with the thermal barrier coating of Liang
because applying [] Liang’s thermal barrier coating as the Examiner
proposes would change the effective depth of Bunker’s squealer tip.”
Appeal Br. 5. In other words, according to Appellant, a skilled person
“would have used a deeper squealer cavity than disclosed in Bunker.”
Appeal Br. 5. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Bunker’s
depth values “a” and “b” are measures of the open depth of the squealer
pocket and do not take into account the thickness of any material that may
have been located within the pocket to bring the pocket up to this open

5 Appellant argues, “[a]dding a thermal barrier coating to the cavity of
Bunker would decrease the depth of the cavity.” Reply Br. 2.
6 Appellant argues that “Liang does not disclose ‘the recess filled with a
thermal barrier coating,’” and thus “the recess is not filled.” Reply Br. 2.
However, Appellant is addressing this “filled” limitation in a vacuum and is
not also taking into account the following claim language regarding the
coating also being “generally flush” as addressed in our claim construction
discussion above.
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

10
depth. See Bunker Fig. 3. In other words, neither measurement addresses
the thickness of a material that may have filled a deeper recess to this open
depth value. Further, Appellant does not present any argument that the
recited arrangement has an effect on air flow or turbine operation different
from that resulting from the above combination of Halfmann, Bunker, and
Liang. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7,
and 11 as being obvious in view of Halfmann, Bunker, and Liang.
The rejection of (a) claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Halfmann, Bunker,
Liang, and Hada; (b) claim 8 as unpatentable over Halfmann, Bunker,
Liang, and Tomita; and, (c) claim 12 as unpatentable over Halfmann,
Bunker, Liang, and Updegrove
Appellant does not separately argue these rejections, only stating that
“[n]one of Hada, Tomita, and Updegrove correct the problems with
Halfmann, Bunker, and Liang as applied to claim 1.” Appeal Br. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of these claims.
The rejection of claim 10
as unpatentable over Lee, Bunker, and Liang
Appellant contends, “[a]s explained above with regard to claims 1
and 13, a skilled person would use a deeper recess than disclosed in Bunker
to account for the thickness of Liang's thermal barrier coating.” Appeal
Br. 6. Appellant’s argument regarding the combination of Bunker and Liang
is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above. See also Ans. 11.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as being obvious over Lee,
Bunker, and Liang.
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

11
The rejection of (a) claims 13, 14, and 21 as unpatentable over Boury,
Bunker, and Liang; and, (b) claims 15–19 as unpatentable over Boury,
Bunker, Liang, and Tomita
Appellant presents no argument regarding the rejections of these
claims. See Appeal Br. generally. Accordingly, we sustain these rejections.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10 112(a) Written description 10
1, 3–8, 11,
12
112(b) Indefinite 1, 3–8, 11,
12
1, 3, 4, 7,
11
103 Halfmann, Bunker,
Liang
1, 3, 4, 7, 11
5, 6 103 Halfmann, Bunker,
Liang, Hada
5, 6
8 103 Halfmann, Bunker,
Liang, Tomita
8
12 103 Halfmann, Bunker,
Liang, Updegrove
12
10 103 Lee, Bunker, Liang 10
13, 14, 21 103 Boury, Bunker,
Liang
13, 14, 21
15–19 103 Boury, Bunker,
Liang, Tomita
15–19
Overall
Outcome7
1, 3–8, 10–
19, 21

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

7 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) states: “The affirmance of the rejection of a claim
on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the
decision of the examiner on that claim.”
Appeal 2019-003858
Application 14/686,979

12

AFFIRMED