Ex Parte Devore et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13416822 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
13/416,822 03/09/2012 Matthew A. Devore PA-0014879-US 6187
11943 7590
0""Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
WOLCOTT, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
uspto @ osheagetz. com
shenry @ osheagetz. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW A. DEVORE and
MATTHEW S. GLEINER
Appeal 2016-007627
Application 13/416,822
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—3, 6—14,
and 17—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as United Technologies Corp. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007627
Application 13/416,822
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to a rotor blade for a gas turbine
engine with one or more side wall cooling circuits. Spec. para. 2. Claims 1,
12, and 21 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the
claimed subject matter.
1. A rotor blade for a gas turbine engine, comprising:
an airfoil comprising a first side wall, a second side wall
and a tip endwall, wherein the first side wall and the second side
wall extend to and cooperate to form the tip endwall defining a
main cavity between the first side wall and the second side wall;
and
a cooling microcircuit comprising
a microcircuit cavity embedded within the first side
wall;
an inlet extending from the main cavity to the
microcircuit cavity;
a side wall outlet extending from the microcircuit
cavity to an exterior first side surface of the airfoil; and
a tip outlet extending from the microcircuit cavity
to an exterior tip surface of the airfoil;
wherein the airfoil further comprises a tip shelf recessed
into the tip end wall, the tip shelf comprises the tip surface, and
the tip surface is contiguous with the first side surface; and
wherein the airfoil is an unshrouded airfoil.
Rejections2
I. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5—
6.
2 The Examiner withdraws the rejections of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs. Ans. 9-10.
2
Appeal 2016-007627
Application 13/416,822
II. Claims 1—3, 6—14, and 17—233 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cunha et al. (US 6,932,571 B2, issued Aug.
23, 2005) (“Cunha”) and Dailey et al. (US 6,264,428 Bl, issued July 24,
2001) (“Dailey”). Final Act. 7-12.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I— Written Description
The Examiner determines that support for the limitation of claim 21
requiring that “a lateral thickness of the tip is less than a lateral thickness of
the base” is not found in the Specification. Final Act. 5. Appellants argue
the leading edge of airfoil 34 shown in Figure 2 of the Specification shows
possession of an airfoil that tapers from the base to the tip. App. Br. 12. We
agree with Appellants.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection II— Obviousness
Appellants argue Cunha teaches away from the rotor blade recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 15. In particular, Appellants contend that “fluidly
coupling suction sidewall 44 outlets with the outlets 72 proximate the tip 36
would take away the advantageous feature of Cunha of air flowing within
the microcircuit 40 transversely across the tip 36.” Id. at 16.
The Examiner reiterates in the Answer that the rejection of claim 1
does not involve modifying Cunha to provide outlets in the suction side
3 Although claim 23 is not listed on page 7 of the Final Action among
those claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner articulated a
rationale for rejecting the claim on page 12 of the Final Action.
3
Appeal 2016-007627
Application 13/416,822
wall, but rather the pressure side wall as taught by Dailey. Ans. 12—13; see
also Final Act. 7 (finding Cunha teaches a first side wall 42), 10 (finding
Dailey teaches a side wall outlet 30, and that “[t]he purpose of providing
sidewall outlets through the pressure side wall is to provide film cooling of
the pressure side wall outer surface” (citing Dailey col. 2,11. 1—16)), 11—12
(determining it would have been obvious to modify Cunha to provide “film
cooling along the outer surface of the first side wall”); Cunha col. 4,11. 19-
20 (describing “generally concave, first or pressure sidewall 42”). Thus, the
premise of Appellants’ argument is flawed, and the argument fails to inform
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
The Examiner also finds Cunha does not teach away from adding
outlets in the pressure side wall because it does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Ans. 12. In addition, the
Examiner finds
one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to connect any
sidewall outlet (i.e. suction side or pressure side) with a
transverse flowing tip microcircuit, while maintaining the
advantageous transverse flow, as [] determining the appropriate
design parameters such as flow, pressure, and geometry of the
cooling system is well within the ordinary skill of one in the art.
Id. at 13.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants maintain that “even if the blade 24 of
Cunha was modified with the teachings of Dailey to include outlets in the
suction sidewall 44 as alleged in the Office Action, Cunha teaches away
from fluidly coupling those added suction sidewall 44 outlets with the
outlets 72 proximate the tip 36.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added). As noted,
however, Appellants’ argument regarding outlets in the suction sidewall
4
Appeal 2016-007627
Application 13/416,822
does not address the Examiner’s rejection involving adding sidewall outlets
to the pressure sidewall of Cunha.
In addition, Appellants do not explain how Cunha, in teaching
transverse flow in the microcircuits, criticizes, discredits, or discourages
sidewall outlets in the pressure side. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Cunha does not teach away from adding sidewall outlets on the pressure
side. Ans. 12. Moreover, Appellants do not persuasively challenge the
Examiner’s reasonable finding, with which we agree, that one of ordinary
skill in the art desiring to maintain Cunha’s transverse flow would have been
able to do so by designing the blades’ geometry to have both features. Ans.
13.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cunha and Dailey. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the
rejection of independent claims 12 and 21, which Appellants argue are
patentable for the same reasons as claim 1, App. Br. 16—17. We also sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 6—11, 13, 14, 17—20, 22, and 23,
which are not argued separately, App. Br. 17.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6—
14, and 17—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cunha and
Dailey.
5
Appeal 2016-007627
Application 13/416,822
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6