11339921 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 9, 2012)

Ex Parte Cunha et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 9, 2012

11339921 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 9, 2012)

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. 11/339,921 01/25/2006 Francisco J. Cunha PA-0001095-US(05-750) 8996 52237 7590 01/09/2012 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER EDGAR, RICHARD A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/09/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte FRANCISCO J. CUNHA and WILLIAM ABDEL-MESSEH ____________ Appeal 2010-000454 Application 11/339,921 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Francisco J. Cunha and William Abdel-Messeh (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 12-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-000454 Application 11/339,921 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a turbine engine component having improved cooling and a refractory metal core for forming the cooling passages.” Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A turbine engine component comprising: an airfoil portion having a leading edge, a trailing edge, a pressure side, a suction side, a pressure side wall, a suction side wall, a root, and a tip; and at least one cooling circuit in at least one of said pressure side wall and said suction side wall of said airfoil portion; said at least one cooling circuit having a serpentine configuration with a plurality of interconnected passageways extending between said root and said tip; and each of said passageways having an aspect ratio no greater than 2:1 for preventing cooling flow reversal in each of said passageways, wherein said aspect ratio for each said passageway is a ratio of a width of a respective passageway to a height of said respective passageway. Independent claims 19 and 23 are each directed to a refractory metal core for forming a passageway within a wall of an airfoil portion of a turbine engine component, where the core comprises a tubular portion “having an aspect ratio no greater than 2:1, wherein said aspect ratio is a ratio of a width of said tubular portion to a height of said tubular portion.” THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 19, 20, and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Draper (US 2003/0235494 A1; pub. Dec. 25, 2003). 2. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Draper. Appeal 2010-000454 Application 11/339,921 3 3. Claims 1-6 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Draper and Chung (US 2002/0164250 A1; pub. Nov. 7, 2002). 4. Claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Draper, Chung, and Bunker (US 6,174,133 B1; iss. Jan. 16, 2001). CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE The Examiner found that Draper’s Figure 3 “reasonably teaches to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a square cross-section serpentine channel, each cannel [sic] segment having an aspect ratio of substantially unity.” Ans. 4-5. The Examiner acknowledged that “Draper fails to expressly recite the claimed aspect ratio in the written disclosure.” Ans. 8. The Examiner explained that “[t]he written disclosure, including paragraph 0026, confirms that which is already shown in FIG. 3.” Ans. 9. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Draper teaches a channel having an aspect ratio of no greater than 2:1 because Draper’s figures are not drawn to scale, Draper contains no disclosure of the dimensions of the channel shown in Figure 3, and the Examiner’s finding is speculative. App. Br. 7-14. The issue presented by this appeal is: Is the Examiner’s finding that Draper discloses “a square cross- section serpentine channel, each c[h]annel segment having an aspect ratio of substantially unity” supported by a preponderance of the evidence? ANALYSIS Draper’s Figure 3 shows “[a] perspective illustration of a serpentine microcircuit incorporating a slot film hole.” Draper 2, para. [0020]. We find no disclosure in Draper indicating that its figures are drawn to scale. Further, Draper’s written description does not disclose the dimensions of the Appeal 2010-000454 Application 11/339,921 4 circuit channel 29 or its aspect ratio (i.e., the ratio of the width of the channel to the height of the channel). While we appreciate that the cross- sectional shape of the channel depicted in Draper’s Figure 3 appears to resemble a square, we cannot discern the cross-sectional shape of Draper’s circuit channel 29 by a preponderance of the evidence from the perspective view provided in Figure 3. “[P]atent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson- Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (patent owner’s argument hinged on an inference drawn from certain figures about the quantitative relationship between the respective widths of a groove and fins); see also In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (“Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.” (citation omitted)). Further, the discussion in Draper’s paragraph 0026 of a surface area of the slot film hole 30 being larger than the cross section of the channel 29 does not provide enough detail as to the dimensions of the channel to rely on the dimensions in Figure 3 to support the finding of a square-shaped cross-section. While the Examiner states that the finding that Draper’s channel has a square-shaped cross-section is not based on measurements of the dimensions in Figure 3, we fail to see how the Examiner would be able to conclude that the cross-sectional shape is a square without measuring the channel shown in Figure 3. As such, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has impermissibly relied on measurements taken from Figure 3 of Draper as the basis for the finding that Draper anticipates claims 19 and 23 and as the Appeal 2010-000454 Application 11/339,921 5 basis for concluding that Draper in combination with Chung renders claim 1 unpatentable. The Examiner does not rely on Chung or Bunker to cure the deficiency in Draper as to the aspect ratio of the channel. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 19, 20, and 22-26 as anticipated by Draper or the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 21 as unpatentable over Draper, of claims 1-6 and 12-16 as unpatentable over Draper and Chung, and of claims 17 and 18 as unpatentable over Draper, Chung, and Bunker. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s finding that Draper discloses “a square cross-section serpentine channel, each c[h]annel segment having an aspect ratio of substantially unity” is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6 and 12-26 is REVERSED. REVERSED nlk