Ex Parte Devore et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2019

14854213 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/854,213 09/15/2015 Matthew A. Devore
54549 7590 04/24/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
67097-3050PUS 1 ;73039US02 3889
EXAMINER
KIM,SANGK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.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
MATTHEWS. GLEINER
Appeal 2018-007736
Application 14/854,213 1
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
According to Appellants, their invention "relates to a cooling passage
for a platform in a gas turbine component." Spec. ,r 3. Claims 1, 9, and 17
1 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007736
Application 14/854,213
are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims.
1. A gas turbine engine component comprising:
an airfoil extending from a first side of a platform; and
a cooling passage extending through the platform and
beneath a trailing edge of the airfoil, the cooling passage
including an inlet located on a second opposite side of the
platform,
wherein the inlet is located axially upstream of the airfoil.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1-9, 15-17, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Beattie et al., (US 8,356,978 B2, iss. Jan. 22,
2013) (hereinafter "Beattie");
II. Claims 1-9, 15-17, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over McLaurin et al. (US 5,639,216, iss. June 17,
1997 (hereinafter "McLaurin"), Beattie, and Liu, Heat Transfer
in Leading and Trailing Edge Cooling Channels of the Gas
Turbine Blade Under High Rotation Numbers, Dec. (2008); and
III. Claims 11-14, 18, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over McLaurin, Beattie, Liu, and Smoke et al.,
(US 8,381,533 B2, iss. Feb. 26, 2013) (hereinafter "Smoke").
2 The Examiner indicates (Advisory Action (mailed Feb. 7, 2018), 1) that
Appellants' amendment to claim 1 (Amendment After Final (filed Jan. 18,
2018), 1) overcomes the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claims 1-8 in
the Final Office Action (see Final Action (mailed Dec. 14, 2017), 3).
2
Appeal 2018-007736
Application 14/854,213
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "a
cooling passage extending through the platform and beneath a trailing edge
of the airfoil, the cooling passage including an inlet located on a second
opposite side of the platform, wherein the inlet is located axially upstream of
the airfoil." Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner does not find that
Beattie discloses the claimed location of the inlet, but instead finds that
"Beattie does teach that the inlet is located at a position rearward of a
leading edge of the platform." Answer 2 ( citing Beattie col. 2, 11. 9-11 ).
Nonetheless, because Beattie discloses that "[t]he inlet 42 to the
cooling passage 34 can be from any number of locations depending on the
particular design, and the environment in which the component is to be
utilized" (Beattie col. 2, 11. 9-14), the Examiner determines that "it would
[have] be[en] obvious ... to relocate Beattie's inlet to the overhang portion
of the platform [which] is located upstream of the airfoil" (Answer 3). "The
rationale for the motivation was the teaching from Beattie that the inlet can
be from any number of locations ... and [because] there is an expectation
such relocation would yield the similar result as the inlet located slightly
downstream of the root and the airfoil." Answer 3 ( citation to Beattie
omitted).
We do not sustain the rejection, however, because the Examiner does
not adequately support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to
move Beattie' s air inlet upstream of the airfoil. Even assuming that one may
expect that Beattie' s cooling passage with the air inlet upstream of the airfoil
would work in a manner similar to a cooling passage with the air inlet
3
Appeal 2018-007736
Application 14/854,213
downstream of the airfoil, this does not provide a reason that one would
move the air inlet. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418
(2007) (requiring that the Examiner provide an articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to establish that it would have been obvious to
modify the reference as the Examiner proposes.)
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain independent claim 1 's
rejection based on Beattie. We also do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 9 and 17, which the Examiner rejects based on a similar
rationale as that discussed above, or the rejection of dependent claims 2-8,
15, 16, 19, 21, and 22.
Rei ections 11-111
For the following reasons, Appellants do not persuade us that the
Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-23, as obviousness
based, in part, on McLaurin. Thus, we sustain these claim rejections.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that these rejections are in error
because "[a]s shown in [McLaurin's] Figure 2, ... passages 48 [and] 49 are
not 'located axially upstream of the airfoil' as claimed." Appeal Br. 4. In
response, the Examiner explains the following:
Although ... [McLaurin's] inlet 50 is not located upstream of
the leading edge of the blade, ... the claim does not necessarily
require the inlet to be upstream of the leading edge of the blade.
The claim[,] however[,] does require the inlet to be upstream of
the airfoil. Although the leading edge of the airfoil is a part of
the airfoil, it is clearly shown in McLaurin in [F]igure 2 that most
portions of the airfoil [are] downstream of the inlet (i.e., the inlet
[is] upstream of most portions of the airfoil). The only portion
of the airfoil that may not be downstream of the inlet is the very
small area at the root of the leading edge[,] and the rest of the
airfoil is clearly shown to be downstream of the inlet. Therefore,
in general, McLaurin's inlet is upstream of the airfoil because
4
Appeal 2018-007736
Application 14/854,213
most portions of the McLaurin's airfoil [are] located downstream
of the inlet.
Answer 4 (italics and underlining added). As an initial matter, the
Examiner's statements adequately support the rejection. In response to the
Examiner, Appellants only argue that because "[t]he Examiner admits that
portions of the airfoil are upstream of the inlet ... , the rejection fails to
establish the claimed inlet [is] 'located axially upstream of the airfoil."'
Reply Br. 3. This argument does not persuade us that the Examiner errs,
however. Specifically, Appellants' argument fails to establish that the
Examiner inadequately supports the finding that McLaurin's teaching of an
air inlet that is upstream of at least some portion of the airfoil discloses the
argued claim recitation. For these reasons, the Examiner's findings establish
a prima facie case of obviousness, but Appellants do not persuasively rebut
the prima facie case.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claim 1 based, in part, on McLaurin. We also sustain the
obviousness rejection of independent claims 9 and 17, as well as the
rejections of dependent claims 2-8, 11-16, 18, 19, and 21-23.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 15-17, 19, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Beattie.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 15-17, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McLaurin, Beattie, and
Liu.
5
Appeal 2018-007736
Application 14/854,213
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-14, 18, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McLaurin, Beattie, Liu, and
Smoke.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6