Ex Parte Fisk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

11951573 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
11/951,573 12/06/2007 Benjamin T. Fisk PA-4454-A; 67097-1224 8626
54549 7590 09/27/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN T. FISK
Appeal 2016-002220
Application 11/951,573
Technology Center 3700
Before: ANNETTE R. REIMERS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9-16, 19—21, 23—26, 28, and 29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to gas turbine engines and related systems
involving air-cooled vanes. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A vane for a gas turbine engine comprising:
Appeal 2016-002220
Application 11/951,573
an airfoil having a leading edge, a pressure wall having an
interior pressure wall surface and an exterior pressure wall
surface, a trailing edge and a suction wall having an interior
suction wall surf ace and an exterior suction wall surface;
a cooling air channel;
the exterior suction wall surface being formed by an
exterior surface of a first wall portion and an exterior surface of
a second wall portion, the first wall portion spanning a length of
the suction wall between the second wall portion and the trailing
edge;
the cooling air channel being defined, at least in part, by
an interior surface of the first wall portion, the first wall portion
exhibiting a thickness that is thinner than a thickness exhibited
by the second wall portion,
a rib extending between the interior suction wall surface
and the interior pressure wall surface;
the first wall portion extends between the trailing edge and
the rib; and,
a cooling air passage, the cooling air passage being
isolated from the cooling air channel, at least in part, by a wall
segment disposed between the interior pressure wall surf ace and
the interior suction wall surf ace, the wall segment being spaced
from the interior surf ace of the first wall portion, wherein there
are no direct connections between the first wall portion and the
wall segment, and wherein the wall segment is supported
between the pressure wall and the suction wall by at least one
partial rib.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Klompas US 3,742,706 July 3, 1973
Sterman US 3,844,678 Oct. 29, 1974
Linask US 5,288,207 Feb. 22, 1994
Phillips US 5,716,192 Feb. 10, 1998
MacManus US 7,241,113 B2 July 10, 2007
Devore US 7,600,966 B2 Oct. 13, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-002220
Application 11/951,573
REJECTIONS1
I. Claims 1—4, 6, 9-11, 13—15, 20, 21, 28, and 29 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacManus and
Devore.
II. Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over MacManus, Devore, and Phillips.
III. Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over MacManus, Devore, and Linask.
IV. Claims 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sterman and Klompas.
V. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sterman, Klompas, and MacManus.
OPINION
Rejections I—III
Claims 1, 11, 14, are 21 independent. Appellant argues all of the
claims under Rejection I together. See Appeal Br. 6—7. Appellant also relies
on these arguments for the patentability of the claims subject to Rejections II
and III. See id. at 7—8. We select independent claim 1 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Thus, claims 2^1, 6, 7, 9-16, 19, 20, 21,
28, and 29 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that MacManus teaches all of the features of
claim 1 (Final Act. 6—7) except, “a cooling air passage, isolated from the
cooling air channel by a wall segment” {id. at 7). The Examiner relies on
1 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 were withdrawn in the Advisory
Action.
3
Appeal 2016-002220
Application 11/951,573
Devore’s cooling air passage 28 for teaching the cooling air channel and the
surrounding structure for the wall segment and interior pressure wall surface.
Id. at 7; see also id. at 2—3. The Examiner then determines that the
combination of MacManus and Devore is obvious. Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that the combination does not teach or suggest a
“cooling air passage being isolated from the cooling air channel, at least in
part, by a wall segment disposed between the interior pressure wall surface
and the interior suction wall surface,” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant’s argument focuses on Devore’s passages or minicores 28,
arguing that Devore teaches that they are “formed within a single outer wall
24 and not between a wall and a wall segment.” Id. at 7. Thus, it is argued,
Devore’s single outer wall 24, which includes the minicores 28, may be
equivalent to the claimed pressure wall, but would not include the cooling
air passage, which is outside of the pressure wall. Id.
Appellant is correct that Devore states that the minicores 28 are
formed in an outer wall. See e.g. Devore col. 1:32—33. However,
Appellant’s argument does not identify error in the Examiner’s interpretation
of the claim language. The Examiner found that a minicore 28 reads on a
cooling air passage and that the outer wall of the minicore reads on a
pressure wall and that the inner wall of the minicore reads on a wall
segment. Final Act. 2—3; see also Ans. 5. Appellant does not identify any
requirement of the claim that would render the Examiner’s findings in error,
or that would require for example, that the “pressure wall” be a structure
larger than the outer wall of the minicore.
Appellant does argue that the Specification requires “the wall segment
is a distinct wall that is spaced apart from the outer pressure wall.” Reply
4
Appeal 2016-002220
Application 11/951,573
Br. 2. However, this does not distinguish Devore as the outer wall of the
minicore is distinct from and spaced apart from the inner wall.
For these reasons, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Rejections IV—V
Claim 23 is independent. Appellant argues all of the claims under
Rejection IV together. See Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also relies on these
arguments for the patentability of the claim subject to Rejection V. See id.
at 9. We select independent claim 23 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Thus, claims 24—26 stand or fall with claim 23.
The Examiner finds that Sterman teaches all of the features of claim
23 (Final Act. 11—12) except, “that the air in the cooling air passage is
isolated from the air in the air channel” (id. at 12). The Examiner finds that
Klompas teaches the isolated cooling passage and channel. Id. The
Examiner determines that it would be obvious to modify Sterman with
Klompas’s isolated cooling passage and channel “in order to utilize diverse
cooling sources [as taught by Klompas] to separately cool the specific airfoil
regions associated with the air passage and air channel, respectively,
according to their cooling requirements.” Id.
Appellant argues that the combination is improper because “the
cooling coefficients created by the holes between the alleged cooling
passage and the alleged cooling air channel are essential to the operation of
Sterman and the proposed modification would remove the holes.” Appeal
Br. 8. Appellant states that “[a] fundamental purpose of the invention of
Sterman is to provide an efficient cooling flowpath through the turbine
5
Appeal 2016-002220
Application 11/951,573
bucket” and that “the purpose of the invention is facilitated by the
openings.” Id. Thus, Appellant concludes that “removal of the openings
would alter a fundamental principle of operation of Sterman.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument as it misapplies the
law. The “fundamental principle of operation” referred to by Appellant
relates to the “basic principles” under which the prior art device was
designed to operate. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) (“This
suggested combination of references would require a substantial
reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference]
as well as a change in the basic principles under which the [primary
reference] construction was designed to operate.”) (emphasis added). Under
Ratti, “a change in the basic principles” refers to change that is fundamental
in scope so as to relate to scientific or technical principles under which the
invention is designed to operate.
Here, Appellant states that the basic principle under which Sterman is
designed to operate is “to provide an efficient cooling flowpath through the
turbine bucket.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant then argues that changing the
manner in which this principle is achieved, by removing the holes between
the cooling air channel and the cooling passage, changes this basic principle.
Id. It does not. We agree with the Examiner that Sterman’s and Klompas’s
methods of achieving efficient cooling are functionally equivalent. Final
Act. 5; see also Ans. 6. Stated differently, we agree with the Examiner that
“substitution of a functionally equivalent (i.e. [Klompas like Sterman] also
cools the airfoil via [an] internal passage structure) does not alter the
fundamental principle of operation (internal convection heat transfer
between a relatively cool fluid against a relatively hot airfoil).” Ans. 6. As
6
Appeal 2016-002220
Application 11/951,573
such, the cooling methods of both Sterman and Klompas are consistent with
the basic principle of Sterman as identified by Appellant.
For these reasons, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9-16, 19-21, 23—26,
28, and 29 are affirmed.
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
7