Ex Parte Bronson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2017

12512816 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2017)

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.
12/512,816 07/30/2009 Thomas J. Bronson H0022404 (002.4468) 6418
89955 7590 09/11/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
KIM, CRAIG SANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS J. BRONSON, FRANK JOSEPH ZUPANC,
PAUL YANKOWICH, and NAGARAJA RUDRAPATNA
Appeal 2015-002688
Application 12/512,816
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas J. Bronson et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—3, 5—18, and 20—22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-002688
Application 12/512,816
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a gas turbine engine combustor,
and a combustor liner segment. Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative:
14. A combustor liner segment, comprising:
a hot side;
a cold side opposing the hot side and having an upstream end and
a downstream end, the cold side extending in an axial direction
between the upstream and downstream ends;
a plurality of effusion cooling holes extending from the cold side
to the hot side, including a first row of effusion cooling holes
disposed at a tangential angle of between about 70° and about
90° relative to the axial direction and a second row of effusion
cooling holes disposed at a tangential angle of between about 0°
and about 20° relative to the axial direction; and
at least one row of dilution openings extending between the hot
and cold sides, the dilution opening being generally aligned in a
circumferential direction with the second row of the effusion
cooling holes.
REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 14 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Schumacher (US 7,546,737 B2, issued June 16, 2009);
(ii) claims 1—3, 5—13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schumacher in view of Burd (US 2007/0144178 Al,
published June 28, 2007); and
2
Appeal 2015-002688
Application 12/512,816
(iii) claims 15—18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schumacher in view of Pacheco-Tougas (US
2003/0213250 Al, published Nov. 20, 2003).
OPINION
Claims 14 and 22—Anticipation by Schumacher
At issue in this anticipation rejection is whether Schumacher
discloses, on a combustor liner segment, at least one row of dilution
openings that are generally aligned in a circumferential direction with a
second row of effusion cooling holes. The holes of the second row of
effusion cooling holes are recited as being disposed at a tangential angle of
between about 0- and about 20- relative to an axial direction. To aid in
understanding what directions correspond to the circumferential and axial
directions, an annotated version of Appellant’s Figure 3 appears below:
3
Appeal 2015-002688
Application 12/512,816
Annotated Figure 3 above is a plan view of a portion of a combustor liner in
accordance with an embodiment of Appellants’ invention.
As can be seen with the red horizontal or circumferential line above,
three pairs of (larger) dilution openings 234 are positioned in a row along the
circumferential direction, and are generally aligned in that same
circumferential direction with a row of (smaller) effusion cooling holes that
are disposed at a tangential angle of about 0- relative to the axial direction,
which correspond to the claimed second row of cooling holes disposed at a
tangential angle of between about 0- and 20- relative to the axial direction.
The Examiner cites to Figure 4 of Schumacher, finding that this figure
illustrates a row of dilution openings 234 in which the openings are
generally aligned in a circumferential direction with a second row of
effusion cooling holes 408. Final Act. 3. The Examiner is correct in finding
4
Appeal 2015-002688
Application 12/512,816
that the effusion cooling holes 408 are oriented relative to the axial direction
in the same manner as are the claimed effusion cooling holes of the claimed
second row. The Examiner has not, however, adequately established that
any of the rows of effusion cooling holes 408 are generally aligned, in a
circumferential direction, with dilution openings 234.
The Examiner agrees with Appellants’ position that, in Figure 4 of
Schumacher, as well as in Figure 3 of Appellants’ drawings, the
circumferential direction is from side-to-side. Ans. 2. Notwithstanding, the
Examiner takes the position that
the circumferentially spaced dilution holes are circumferentially
aligned with every set of holes. As each set of holes are all
spaced in the circumferential direction, there is always a hole
within each set that aligns with spacing of the dilution holes.
Id.
As best as we understand the above, it appears that the Examiner is
saying that, as one moves circumferentially around the wall of the
combustor liner, at every location of a dilution opening along a row, there
will be effusion cooling holes in other circumferential rows that are aligned
with each dilution opening. Even assuming that to be true, this establishes
only that each dilution opening is aligned in an axial direction with effusion
cooling holes in other, axially spaced, rows of effusion cooling holes.
As pointed out by Appellants, the dilution openings 234 in
Schumacher are circumferentially aligned with a row of effusion cooling
holes (identified by Appellants as row 406), but those effusion cooling holes
are not oriented, as are the claimed second row of cooling holes, at an angle
between 0-20- relative to the axial direction. Appeal Br. 17; Schumacher,
Fig. 4. The Examiner all but concedes that an anticipation rejection is of no
5
Appeal 2015-002688
Application 12/512,816
avail, stating that “the structure of [Appellants’ Figure 3 and Schumacher
Figure 4] are nearly indistinguishable and the only difference is the location
of the dilution holes.” Ans. 3. Yet it is that difference in location,
specifically relative to a row of effusion cooling holes oriented in a
particular direction relative to the axial direction, that is embodied in the
language of claim 14.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 22 as
being anticipated by Schumacher.
Claims 1—3, 5—13, and 21—Unpatentability over Schumacher, Burd
Independent claim 1 includes essentially the same limitations as claim
14 relative to the row of dilution openings and the row of effusion cooling
holes. See Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). The same flawed finding
addressed above with respect to claim 14 is not remedied by the Examiner’s
application of the teachings of Burd to Schumacher. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 3, 5—13, and 21 depending therefrom,
is not sustained.
Claims 15—18 and 20— Unpatentability over Schumacher, Pacheco-Tougas
Independent claim 20 includes essentially the same limitations as
claim 14 relative to the row of dilution openings and the row of effusion
cooling holes. See id. at 30—31 (Claims App.). Claims 15—18 depend from
claim 14.
The same flawed finding addressed above with respect to claim 14 is
not remedied by the Examiner’s application of the teachings of Pacheco-
6
Appeal 2015-002688
Application 12/512,816
Tougas to Schumacher. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 15—18 and 20
is not sustained.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—3, 5—18, and 20-22 are reversed.
REVERSED
7