Ex Parte Santoro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2018

13328733 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2018)

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.
13/328,733 12/16/2011 Stephanie Santoro PA-0016774-U 2330
11943 7590
0""Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
03/05/2018 EXAMINER
SEHN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/05/2018 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):
uspto @ osheagetz. com
shenry @ osheagetz. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHANIE SANTORO, MATTHEW A. DEVORE,
and STEVEN B. GAUTSCHI
Appeal 2017-005652
Application 13/328,733
Technology Center 3700
Before LISA M. GUIJT, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision2 rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 9-11, 13, and 14. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as United Technologies Corp.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated June 23, 2016.
Appeal 2017-005652
Application 13/328,733
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An air-cooled turbine component comprising:
an outer surface adapted to be cooled by a film of
cooling air flowing thereover;
a radial cooling air passage extending through the
interior of said component; and
a plurality of film cooling holes extending between
said outer surface and said radial cooling passage;
each of said film cooling holes having a
substantially constant cross-sectional area along the length
thereof;
each of said film cooling holes intersecting said
radial cooling passage such that said film cooling hole and
that portion of said radial cooling passage immediately
upstream from said intersection thereof with said film
cooling hole defining an acute angle, whereby cooling air
entering said film cooling holes from said radial cooling
passage is angularly displaced greater than 90- from the
flow of cooling air through said radial cooling passage for
decreasing the momentum of airflow through said film
cooling hole and any tendency of cooling air discharged
form said film cooling hole at said outer airfoil surface to
separate therefrom;
wherein said turbine component comprises a rotor
blade.
2
Appeal 2017-005652
Application 13/328,733
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 4—6, 9-11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Spangler (US 7,712,316 B2; issued
May 11, 2010) and Lee (US 5,458,461; issued Oct. 17, 1995).
II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Spangler, Lee, and Sreekanth (US 2008/0156943 Al;
published July 3, 2008).
OPINION
Rejection I
Independent claim and claims 4—6 depending therefrom
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Spangler discloses an air-cooled turbine component, including film cooling
holes that intersect a radial cooling passage as claimed. Final Act. 3^4
(citing Spangler, Fig. 3). The Examiner determines, however, that Spangler
fails to disclose cooling holes having a substantially constant cross-sectional
area along the length thereof. Id. at 4.3 The Examiner relies on Lee for
teaching film cooling holes 44, radial cooling passage (or cooling circuit) 42,
and an elongate slot 46 that “helps provide diffusion of the cooling air over
the airfoil surface, wherein the film cooling holes have a substantially
3 We note, for example, that Spangler’s cooling holes 36 have a meter
section 38 with a constant cross-sectional area, but also a diffused section
40. See, e.g., Spangler 2:46-47.
3
Appeal 2017-005652
Application 13/328,733
constant cross-sectional area along their length.” Id. at 5 (citing Lee, Fig. 1).
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to substitute
Lee’s diffusing slot for the diffused sections of Spangler’s cooling holes,
“thus making the film cooling holes of Spangler with substantially constant
cross-sectional areas along their lengths, for the purpose of improving
diffusion on the outer surface of the blade.” Id. (citing Lee 5:7—13). The
Examiner also reasons that
[t]he diffusing sections of the film cooling holes of Spangler and
the elongate diffusing slot of Lee are both known elements for
enabling diffusion of the cooling air onto the blade outer surface,
thus improving the effectiveness of the film cooling, and
substituting the elongate slot of Lee in for the diffusion sections
of Spangler result in the cooling air flowing through the film
cooling holes still to be diffused onto the blade surface.
Id.', see also Ans. 2—3 (“Although modifying the cooling holes of Spangler
to have a constant cross section, as taught by Lee, would eliminate the
diffused section,. . . [b]oth the elongate slot [of Lee] and the diffusing
sections of Spangler are known elements and enable diffusion of cooling air
onto the blade outer surface, thus improving the effectiveness of the film
cooling.”).
Appellants submit that Spangler addresses the problem of centrifugal
forces forcing air from the meter section of a film cooling hole away from
the diffused section of the film cooling hole, such that the diffused section is
not always filled with cooling air. Appeal Br. 8—9 (citing Spangler 2:52—
58); Reply Br. 2. Appellants also submit that because Spangler’s solution is
to reorient the meter section to ensure air is driven into and fills the diffused
4
Appeal 2017-005652
Application 13/328,733
section, Spangler’s meter section is “specifically tailored to diffused cooling
holes; i.e., cooling holes with flared geometries.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing
Spangler 3:8—10); Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that because an inventive
aspect of Spangler is “ensuring a diffused section 54 of a cooling hole is
filled with air, . . . Spangler teaches away from a modification which would
remove its diffused section 54, which the meter section 52 is being re­
orientated to fill.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added).
Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by
disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also
criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, although Spangler
solves the problem of the inefficient use of the diffusion sections of the
cooling holes, such that “air exits the film cooling hole at a greater velocity,
and does not stay on the face of the blade as long as would be desired”
(Spangler 1:44—51), Spangler does not criticize, discredit or otherwise
discourage the use of slots in place of the diffusion section, as proposed by
the Examiner—also to reduce the velocity of the film cooling air. See, e.g.,
Lee 2:5—10 (“it is known to provide tapered film cooling holes which reduce
the velocity of the film cooling air . . . for improving the effectiveness of the
film of the film cooling air discharged from the hole”); id. at 2:14—21 (“It is
also conventionally known to provide a longitudinally extending slot. . .
being fed by . . . cooling metering holes [to] provide[] a plenum of increased
are [for] reducing] the velocity of the film cooling air therein by diffusion
prior to discharge from the slot.”). Moreover, Lee specifically discloses that
5
Appeal 2017-005652
Application 13/328,733
“[vjarious embodiment of film cooling holes feeding diffusion holes or slots
are known and have varying degrees of complexity and effectiveness in a
crowded art.” Lee 2:27—30 (emphasis added). In other words, Lee supports
the Examiner’s determination that diffusion holes (as disclosed in Spangler)
and slots (as disclosed in Lee) are known substitutes. Thus, we are not
persuaded that Spangler teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed
modification. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)
(citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)) (holding that
when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered
by the mere substitution of one element lor another known in the field, the
combination must do more than yield a predictable result).
Appellants also argue that because “there is no teaching or suggestion
in Spangler that the orientation of its meter section 52 as shown in FIG. 3
would provide any benefit to a cooling hole without a diffused section 54 or
a cooling hole leading into a channel,... a person of skill in the art would
have no motivation to combine the teachings of Spangler and Lee,” as
proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 9. However, Appellants’ argument
appears to be holding the Examiner to the old TSM (teaching, suggestion, or
motivation) standard; such a standard is not the only basis to demonstrate
obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007). As
discussed supra, the Examiner’s rationale (i.e., improving the effectiveness
of the film cooling by substituting known structures for improving diffusion)
is supported by factual findings in the prior art. See, e.g., Lee 2:14—22
(disclosing that known, conventional slots fed by cooling metering holes
6
Appeal 2017-005652
Application 13/328,733
reduce the velocity of the film cooling air therein by diffusion prior to
discharge from the slot).
Appellants further argue, for the first time in their Reply Brief, that
the Examiner’s proposed modification “takes away the inventive and
advantageous features of Spangler and, thus, renders the invention of
Spangler incapable of performing its intended purpose.” Reply Br. 2
(citations omitted). In support, Appellants submit that “due to the geometry
of the elongated slot of Lee, the slot 46 has no radial outer surface near the
holes 48,” and “[t]hus there is/are no surface(s) to restrain the cooling air
radially when it comes out of the holes 48.” Id. at 3. Appellants submit that
“[i]n contrast, the meter section 52 of Spangler is operable to ensure a
diffused section 54 of a cooling hole is filled with air since the diffused
section has an outer surface near the meter section 52.” Id. Appellants
conclude that “the meter sections 52 of Spangler would no longer be able to
perform their intended purpose if the teachings of Spangler were modified as
alleged in the Examiner’s Answer.” Id.
Appellants, however, have not demonstrated good cause as to why
these arguments were not raised earlier in the Appeal Brief. Upon our
review of the record, we find that Appellants had adequate notice of the
Examiner’s proposed modification in the Final Action, and these new
arguments raised in the Reply Brief are not responsive to a new argument
raised in the Examiner’s Answer. Without the benefit of having the
Examiner's response to these arguments, we decline to consider them. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was
7
Appeal 2017-005652
Application 13/328,733
not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in
the examiner's answer,. . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes
of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Spangler and Lee.
Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 4—6, which depend from claim 1, and therefore, for the same reasons
stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4—6. Appeal Br.
10.
Independent claim 9 and claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 depending therefrom
Regarding independent claim 9, Appellants submit that “Spangler
teaches away from such a turbine component for at least similar reasons set
forth [] with respect to claim 1.” Appeal Br. 11. We do not agree that
Spangler teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Spangler, in view of Lee, with respect to claim 1, and therefore, for the
reasons stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 9.
Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 10, 11, 13, and 14, which depend from claim 9, and
therefore, for the same reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10, 11, 13, and 14. Appeal Br. 10.
8
Appeal 2017-005652
Application 13/328,733
Rejection II
Appellants rely on their arguments with respect to independent claim
1, from which claim 2 depends. Appeal Br. 11. Therefore, for the same
reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,2, 4—6, 9-11, 13, and 14 is
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9