Ex Parte Little et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2014

12044017 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID A. LITTLE and HUBERTUS E. PAPROTNA
____________

Appeal 2012-0114901
Application 12/044,017
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, 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
1–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to the Specification, Appellants invented “a gas turbine
engine with efficient controlled temperature regulation of the turbine section

1 Appellants identify Siemens Power Generation, Inc., as the real party in
interest. See Appeal Br. 1.
2 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Mar. 7,
2008) and Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Mar. 5, 2012), as well as the
Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed May 9, 2012).
Appeal 2012-011490
Application 12/044,017

2

blades.” Spec ¶ 8. Claims 1, 9, and 13 are the only independent claims
under appeal. We reproduce below claim 1 as representative of the claims.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a compressor section;
a combustion section downstream from said
compressor section;
a turbine section downstream from said
combustion section including
a rotor shaft,
a plurality of turbine blades, and
a plurality of discs coupling
corresponding ones of the plurality of
turbine blades to the rotor shaft, each disc
having a plurality of disc cooling fluid
passages therein associated with cooling the
turbine blades, and
a respective thermal shape memory sleeve in
at least some of the disc cooling fluid passages and
defining a sleeve throat opening that changes
based upon a temperature to adjust a flow of
cooling fluid therethrough.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 11–14, and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Care (US 6,485,255 B1, iss. Nov. 26, 2002) and Takahashi
(US 6,994,516 B2, iss. Feb. 7, 2006);
claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Care,
Takahashi, and Little (US 2005/0050901 Al, pub. Mar. 10, 2005); and
claims 3, 8, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Care, Takahashi, and Mankame (US 7,891,075 B2, iss. Feb. 22, 2011).
Appeal 2012-011490
Application 12/044,017

3

ANALYSIS
Initially, we note that Appellants argue each of the claims together.
See Br. 11. Thus, based on the results of our analysis below of claim 1, we
sustain the rejections of claims 1–20.
Independent claim 1 requires:
a plurality of discs coupling corresponding ones of
the plurality of turbine blades to the rotor shaft,
each disc having a plurality of disc cooling fluid
passages therein associated with cooling the
turbine blades, and
a respective thermal shape memory sleeve in at
least some of the disc cooling fluid passages and
defining a sleeve throat opening that changes
based upon a temperature to adjust a flow of
cooling fluid therethrough.
Br., Claims App. Appellants argue the rejection is in error because:
Takahashi . . . was relied upon as allegedly
disclosing the use of a plurality of cooling paths
through a disc of a rotor associated with cooling
the turbine blades. The Examiner misinterpreted
the cited reference. In the approach of Takahashi et
al., a coolant supply path 7 is formed in an axial
direction of the turbine disc 11. There is no
plurality of disc cooling fluid passages therein
associated with cooling the turbine blades, much
less a respective thermal shape memory sleeve in
the disc cooling fluid passages, as claimed.
Br. 10 (underlining in original). In response, the Examiner explains:
As seen in Fig. 4 of Takahashi, there is a plurality
of cooling passages (passages 7 are coolant supply
passages and passages 8 are coolant return
passages). In the Fig. 4 embodiment there are
Appeal 2012-011490
Application 12/044,017

4

eight of each (see column 9, lines 38–40 of
Takahashi) in disc 11. Such passages
communicate with a cavity 31 for supplying
coolant to the blades (see column 8, line 64 to
column 9, line 6 of Takahashi). Thus, the passages
7, 8 of Takahashi are associated with (supply
cooling air for) cooling the turbine blade as
claimed. In view of the above discussion, the
proposed combination of references is proper and
teaches each of the claimed features.
Answer 16. The Examiner’s findings are sufficient to establish a prima facie
case that Takahashi teaches the claimed “plurality of disc cooling fluid
passages therein associated with cooling the turbine blades” as required by
claim 1. Inasmuch as Appellants do not sufficiently rebut the Examiner’s
findings, and establish why Takahashi’s multiple paths 7 and 8 are not
associated with cooling turbine blades, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejections of claims 1–20.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Ssc