Ex Parte Little et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 201412044017 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation