Ex Parte Devore et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2014

12050408 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW A. DEVORE and
ELEANOR D. KAUFMAN
____________

Appeal 2012-0115411
Application 12/050,408
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1, 2, 4–9, 11–13, 15–20, and 22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to the Specification, Appellants’ invention “is directed to
an airfoil portion of a turbine engine component.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and

1 Appellants identify United Technologies Corp. as the real party in interest.
See Appeal Br. 1.
2 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Mar. 18,
2008), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed May 22, 2012), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 2, 2012), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Answer,” mailed June 5, 2012).
Appeal 2012-011541
Application 12/050,408

2

12 are the only independent claims under appeal. We reproduce, below,
claim 1 as representative of the claims on appeal.
1. A turbine engine component having an
airfoil portion with a pressure side wall, a suction
side wall, and a trailing edge, said component
comprising:
at least one first cooling circuit core embedded
within the pressure side wall;
each said first cooling circuit core having a first
exit for discharging a cooling fluid;
at least one second cooling circuit core embedded
within the suction side wall;
each said second cooling circuit core having a
second exit for discharging a cooling fluid; and
said first and second exits being aligned in a
spanwise direction of said airfoil portion,
wherein each of said first and second cooling
circuit cores has a cooling microcircuit, a non-
convergent section adjacent said cooling
microcircuit, and a spanwise convergent section
adjacent said non-convergent section.

REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–13, 15–20, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Liang (US 2005/0281667 A1, publ. Dec.
22, 2005).3

3 Although page 2 of the Examiner’s Answer states, “[c]laims 1–22 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. [§] 102(b),” claims 3, 10, 14, and 21 are not under
appeal (see Appeal Br. 7, Claims App.).
Appeal 2012-011541
Application 12/050,408

3

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires the claim limitation, “wherein each of
said first and second cooling circuit cores has a cooling microcircuit, a non-
convergent section adjacent said cooling microcircuit, and a spanwise
convergent section adjacent said non-convergent section.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner has not
indicated where Liang teaches the claimed convergent and non-convergent
sections, and does not show the claimed positions of the sections relative to
the microcircuit. See Id. at 9. In response, the Examiner states that:
[I]t is the main body of the flow channel 30 which
forms a non-convergent section. As can be seen in
Figure 2 of Liang and as shown in [a figure in the
Answer], the upper and lower bounds of flow
channel 30 are substantially parallel to each other,
i.e.[,] they do not converge, at the upstream end of
the flow channel at the left side of the figure.
Further shown in Figure 2, the transition region 58
features a lower boundary formed by curved taper
62 in the upper flow channel and linear taper 60 in
the lower flow channel which converges toward
the upper boundary of the flow channel.
Answer 8. Appellants point out, however:
There is no disclosure in Liang, either in writing or
in the drawings, that the cooling fins 64 are located
adjacent a non-convergent section. Thus, even if
somehow one was to construe the cooling fins 64
as the cooling microcircuit, Liang does not
disclose a non-convergent section adjacent the
cooling fins.
Figure 2 is not helpful on the issue. Even though,
Figure 2 shows a flow channel with the a [sic] non-
convergent section and the convergent section, it
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/050,408 03/18/2008 Matthew A. Devore 0003832-US(06-684) 8656
52237 7590 11/21/2014
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
BROWN, ADAMWAYNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2014 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)
Appeal 2012-011541
Application 12/050,408

4

does not show where the cooling fins 64 are
located relative to the non-convergent section.
Thus, the Examiner’s arguments on pages 8–9 of
the Examiner’s Answer do not resolve the issue.
Reply Br. 2–3. Based on our review, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner does not sufficiently establish the required locations of the
convergent and non-convergent sections relative to the cooling
microcircuits. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated
by Liang.
Independent claim 12 requires similar limitations to those discussed
above with respect to claim 1, and thus we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 12 for similar reasons. Remaining claims 2, 4–9, 11, 13, 15–20, and
22 depend from claim 1 or claim 12. Thus, we also do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 2, 4–9, 11, 13, 15–20, and 22.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–13, 15–20, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is REVERSED.

REVERSED

rvb