Ex Parte Bunker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

12604460 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/604,460 10/23/2009
6147 7590 05/05/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. Kl-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald Scott Bunker
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
238379-1 8582
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD SCOTT BUNKER
Appeal2014-000600
Application 12/604,460
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-21, and 23-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a structure and method for improving film
cooling using a shallow trench with holes oriented along the length of the
Appeal2014-000600
Application 12/604,460
trench. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A turbine airfoil comprising:
at least one trench, each trench comprising a plurality of
film holes disposed therein and located along the lengthwise
direction of the corresponding trench and angled through a
corresponding airfoil substrate substantially in the lengthwise
direction of the corresponding trench, wherein the depth of the
trench is less than an average throat diameter of the
corresponding film cooling holes;
a bond layer bonded to a surface of the corresponding
airfoil substrate; and
an overlying thermal barrier coating attached to the
opposite side of the bond layer, wherein the trench penetrates the
bond layer and the overlying thermal barrier coating, and
further wherein each film hole penetrates the airfoil substrate.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lee
Bunker
us 5,458,461
US 6,234,755 Bl
Oct. 17, 1995
May 22, 2001
Ronald S. Bunker, Film Cooling Effectiveness Due to Discrete Holes
within a Transverse Surface Slot, ASME Turbo Expo (2002) (hereinafter
"Bunker Publication").
2
Appeal2014-000600
Application 12/604,460
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Bunker Publication and
Bunker. Final Act. 8. 1
OPINION
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 15, the Examiner found Lee taught a
turbine airfoil 20, comprising at least one shallow trench 46, each trench
comprising a plurality of film holes 48 disposed therein as a single row and
located along the lengthwise direction of the corresponding trench and
angled through a corresponding airfoil substrate substantially in the
lengthwise direction of the corresponding trench. Final Act. 8. The
Examiner found the Bunker Publication taught a depth of a shallow trench
that is less than the average throat diameter of the corresponding film
cooling holes. Final Act. 10, citing Bunker Publication, pp. 129, 135.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any
prima facie conclusion of obviousness. The key to supporting any prima
facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear
articulation of the reason( s) why the claimed invention would have been
obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit. The Federal Circuit has stated that
"rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
1 The Examiner entered an After Final amendment dated March 27, 2013
and consequently withdrew the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 5.
3
Appeal2014-000600
Application 12/604,460
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550
U.S. at 418.
The Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning to indicate that
there would be a reasonable expectation of success from the combination of
Lee and the Bunker Publication. The Examiner merely indicates that no
structure is destroyed from the combination and Lee would still function to
provide film cooling. Ans. 16. As Appellant correctly points out, Lee and
the Bunker Publication represent two different methods of cooling,
diffusion-based mixing and cooling (taught in Lee, see Br. 10), and
obstruction based mixing and cooling (taught in the Bunker Publication, see
Br. 10-11). Br. 14. Given that Lee and the Bunker Publication provide two
different cooling structures which result in two different cooling methods, it
is not sufficient to say modifying Lee with a trench having a depth less than
the average diameter of the film cooling hole would result in "the best film
cooling effectiveness." Final Act. 10. The Examiner has not explained why
a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would expect
to have "the best film cooling effectiveness" by combining a feature in
Bunker, which is disclosed as beneficial to that type of cooling, with the
structure and cooling method of Lee, which is directed to a different type of
cooling. The Examiner has therefore not met the burden of supporting the
obviousness conclusion with an articulated reasoning supported by rational
underpinnings and the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 15 is reversed. Claims
2-5, 7-9, 12, 13, 17-21, and 23-25 are dependent from claims 1, 11, and 15
and the rejection of those claims is also reversed.
4
Appeal2014-000600
Application 12/604,460
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-21, and
23-25 is reversed.
REVERSED
5