Ex Parte Arness et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2010

10829281 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte BRIAN PETER ARNESS,
GRAHAM DAVID SHERLOCK,
JOSEPH LEONARD MOROSO,
STEWART WILLIAM BEITZ,
and GRAYDON WAYNE PETERS
__________

Appeal 2009-005445
Application 10/829,281
Technology Center 1700
___________

Decided: April 29, 2010
___________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2009-005445
Application 10/829,281

Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. An article for repairing turbine nozzle segments each
having an airfoil between inner and outer platforms with a
trailing edge portion of the airfoil removed leaving intermediate
and leading edge portions of the airfoil between the platforms
comprising:

a trailing edge coupon having pressure and suction side
wall portions;

a plurality of film cooling holes generally radially spaced
one from the other along a pressure side wall portion of the
coupon;

said coupon including a trailing edge having a plurality
of radially spaced openings connected to a radially extending
plenum;

a plurality of radially spaced ribs extending between
opposite pressure and suction sides of the coupon, said ribs
shaped to form radially spaced flow channels for directing
cooling air to said plenum; and

wherein edges of the pressure and suction side wall
portions are chamfered for welding to pressure and suction side
wall portions of the intermediate portion of the airfoil.

Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added).1
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us on appeal:
(1) Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the Appellants’ disclosure of the prior art2 in view of
Williams,3 Beeck,4 and Field.5

1 Appeal Brief dated June 2, 2008.
2 Paragraphs [0002]-[0004] of the Appellants’ Specification.
2
Appeal 2009-005445
Application 10/829,281

(2) Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the Appellants’ disclosure of the prior art in view of
Jackson 152,6 Jackson 048,7 or Mendham8 and further in view of Williams,
Beeck, and Field.
B. ISSUE
Have the Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that the teachings of Beeck in combination with the prior art
repair coupons described in the Appellants’ Specification, Jackson 152,
Jackson 048, or Mendham render obvious a coupon having a plurality of
radially spaced openings connected to a radially extending plenum as recited
in claim 1?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Beeck Figure 2a, reproduced below, illustrates a guide or turbine
blade used in gas turbines. Beeck, paras. [0001], [0024].

3 US 2,657,902 to Williams issued November 3, 1953.
4 US 2001/0012484 A1 to Beeck et al. published August 9, 2001.
5 US 4,672,727 to Field issued June 16, 1987.
6 US 2002/0197152 A1 to Jackson et al. published December 26, 2002.
7 US 2003/0082048 A1 to Jackson et al. published May 1, 2003.
8 US 5,269,057 to Mendham issued December 14, 1993.
3
Appeal 2009-005445
Application 10/829,281

Beeck Figure 2a depicts a cross section
of the guide blade.

Beeck Figure 2c, reproduced below, is a section along line X-X in
Beeck Figure 2a. Beeck, para. [0024].

Beeck Figure 2c depicts a portion of the
guide blade illustrated in Beeck Figure 2a.

4
Appeal 2009-005445
Application 10/829,281

Beeck discloses:
First ribs 16 are located directly adjacent to the insert 12. The
cooling air flowing between insert 12 and the walls 10 and 11
flows essentially axially in the passages 27 between the ribs 16
into the rear region of the guide blade. Located behind the first
row of ribs 16 is a front radial plenum 18, which permits a flow
and pressure balance of the cooling air in the radial direction.
Adjoining the plenum 18 is a further row of ribs 17 . . . .
A further radial plenum 19 follows, followed by so-called
pins 20, i.e. rows of ribs which are designed as simple webs and
permit as uniform a distribution of the cooling-air flow as
possible at the trailing edge 21. . . .

Beeck, para. [0025]-[0026]. Another row of ribs 24, located at the trailing
edge, form passages 25 through which the cooling air flows. Beeck, para.
[0027].
D. ANALYSIS
The Appellants only dispute in this appeal relates to Beeck. The
Appellants argue that the exit passages 25 in Beeck do not connect to a
radial plenum. Rather, the Appellants argue that “the cooling air must
negotiate a series of offset pins 20 designed to uniformly distribute the flow
of cooling air in an axial direction, i.e., in a direction toward the trailing
edge.” Br. 12.
The Examiner correctly explains that the trailing edge openings (e.g.,
25) “are clearly ‘connected’ to the radial plenums of Beeck or no cooling
medium would reach them.” Ans. 10-11.9 That is, the openings 25 are
connected to the radial plenum 19 via the passages formed by pins 20. We
note that claim 1 does not exclude intermediate passages, such as those

9 Examiner’s Answer dated August 20, 2008.
5
Appeal 2009-005445
Application 10/829,281

formed by pins 20, which connect the openings 25 with the radial plenums
18 and 19.
The Appellants also argue:
. . . Beeck’s disclosure is wholly unrelated to the design of
repair coupons, and the Examiner has proffered no evidence or
detailed rationale to support the conclusion that one skilled in
the art would have incorporated the claimed cooling
configuration into a repair coupon.

Br. 12.
This argument is not supported by the record. The Examiner found
that it was known to construct nozzle airfoils with a plurality of cooling
holes to extend the operating life of turbine nozzles. The Examiner also
found that it was known to replace the damaged trailing edge portion of a
nozzle airfoil with a replacement trailing edge portion, i.e., repair coupon.
Ans. 3, 5. The Examiner concluded:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to incorporate cooling hole
improvements used in current extended life nozzle airfoils when
repairing damaged nozzle airfoils in order to take advantage of
the potential increase in operation life afforded by the inclusion
of cooling holes.

Ans. 3-4; see also Ans. 8.
The Examiner also found that “using repair coupons having cooling
holes is conventional in the art [as] shown by Jackson ‘048 (e.g. Figure 9),
Jackson ‘152 (Figure 6) and Mendham (Figure 7).” Ans. 6.
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the rib and radial
plenum configurations of Beeck in the aforementioned prior art repair
coupons to improve cooling and increase operating life. Ans. 4-5, 6-7; see
6
Appeal 2009-005445
Application 10/829,281

also In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) (economic factors
alone may provide sufficient motivation). Significantly, the Appellants do
not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness or
the underlying factual findings.
In sum, the Examiner’s position is well supported by the record.
Therefore, we will affirm the § 103(a) rejections on appeal.
D. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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

tc

NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203

7