12492663 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

Ex Parte Spangler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 2016

12492663 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/492,663 0612612009 12208 7590 Kinney&Lange,P.A. 312 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 05/06/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Brandon W. Spangler 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. PA0010594A-U73.12-474KL 7722 EXAMINER EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2016 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): amkoenck@kinney.com USPatDocket@kinney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRANDON W. SP ANGLER and SAM DRAPER Appeal 2014-003199 1,2 Application 12/492,663 Technology Center 3700 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. According to Appellants, the "invention relates to fluid-cooled airfoils, and[,] more particularly[,] to fluid-cooled airfoils suitable for use 1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed June 26, 2009), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Apr. 5, 2013), and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 18, 2013), as well as the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed May 20, 2013). 2 The real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-003199 Application 12/492,663 with gas turbine engines." Spec. i12. We reproduce, below, independent claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. An apparatus for a gas turbine engine, the apparatus compnsmg: an airfoil defining a trailing edge, opposite first and second faces, and a mean camber line; a metering opening for metering a cooling fluid; a cutback slot configured to deliver the cooling fluid from the metering opening, the cutback slot defined along the first face of the airfoil adjacent to the trailing edge and offset from the mean camber line of the airfoil; and a cooling hole having an outlet that is located at the trailing edge and substantially aligned with the mean camber line of the airfoil, wherein the cooling hole delivers a portion of the cooling fluid from the metering opening, wherein the cutback slot defines an upstream boundary at the first face of the airfoil, and wherein the cooling hole defines an inlet located at or downstream from the upstream boundary of the cutback slot. Appeal Br., Claims App. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Goodman (US 2006/0039787 Al, pub. Feb. 23, 2006). The Examiner rejects claims 3, 9, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Goodman and Anselmi (US 5,503,529, iss. Apr. 2, 1996). 2 Appeal2014-003199 Application 12/492,663 The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Goodman and Dean (US 6,520,836 B2, iss. Feb. 18, 2003). The Examiner rejects claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Goodman and Corsmeier (US 5,203,873, iss. Apr. 20, 1993). The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Goodman, Anselmi, and Dean. See Answer 3-11. ANALYSIS Written description rejection of claim 17 The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Examiner determines the following: Claim 17 discloses "wherein the plurality of trailing edge cooling passages having the second portion are located exclusively in a region between 30% to 80% of a span of the airfoil." Examiner has been unable to find anywhere in the specification that supports the limitation . . . . The specification is in fact much broader than this, stating in paragraph [0013] "In one embodiment, the spanwise location S1 is at approximately 30% of a span of the airfoil 26 and the spanwise location S2 is at approximately 70-80% of the span of the airfoil 26." Answer 3. We agree with Appellants, however, that the originally-filed Specification, including the portion referenced above by the Examiner, supports the limitation of claim 13. See Appeal Br. 11-13; see also Reply 3 Appeal2014-003199 Application 12/492,663 Br. 2. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 based on 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph. Anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, and 20 Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10 Independent claim 1 recites that "the cooling hole defines an inlet located at or downstream from the upstream boundary of the cutback slot." Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds that, in Goodman, the cooling hole (29") defines an inlet located at or downstream from the upstream boundary of the cutback slot (31 '') (see annotated Fig. [ 12 of Goodman] below). t~~/;..KBÂ·~~ :~:. bz~ ~~ r--J~~ ::,;Â· Df ~~=~{gs~ ~~: 11 ' ~~h3r:9 p ;Â·e ::::, -s.~u:Â·~(:~ Â·~.::~ (~~:: '..~ .:~. Fig. 12 29n I ~;Â·':!c'.j r~t ~YF.ii:Â·:.g p~~ -~~5~-~:~'.~)~~~ ? d Answer 4--5. We conclude, however, that the Examiner's finding that the location of the cooling hole inlet is downstream of the cutback slot is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Appeal Br. 13-16. Goodman describes in paragraphs 34, 35, and 40, for example, that cooling passage 28'' connects supply passage 18 to discharge opening 29' ', and that cooling passage 31 '' (that terminates in discharge opening 32' ') intersects cooling passage 28". Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the 4 Appeal2014-003199 Application 12/492,663 claim term "inlet," in view of Appellants' Specification, is the inlet of the straight-passage cooling hole where the cooling hole connect to the larger fluid passage formed in the airfoil. See, e.g., Appellants' Figure 3, in which straight-passage cooling hole 50 is connected to metering opening 46 via inlet 56. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill would identify the inlet of cooling passage 28'' that connects to Goodman's discharge opening 29'' (that the Examiner equates to the claimed "cooling hole") to be adjacent supply passage 18, i.e., upstream of the upstream boundary of cooling passage 31 '' that connects to Goodman's discharge opening 3 0'' (that the Examiner equates to the claimed "cutback slot"), in opposition to the claim's recitation that "the cooling hole defines an inlet located at or downstream from the upstream boundary of the cutback slot" (Appeal Br., Claims App.). Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, and 10 that depend from claim 1. Claim 20 Independent claim 20 recites "delivering a portion of the cooling fluid from the cutback slot where film cooling is provided through the trailing edge of the airfoil to provide convective cooling." Appeal Br., Claims App. Although the Examiner finds that paragraphs 30 and 39--41 of Goodman disclose the claimed delivering, we find that none of these portions of Goodman disclose delivering a portion of the cooling fluid from a cutback slot through a trailing edge of the airfoil, as claimed. Answer 5-6. For example, the Examiner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Goodman teaches that fluid is provided from cooling passage 31 '' (that the Examiner equates to the claimed "cutback slot") 5 Appeal2014-003199 Application 12/492,663 through discharge opening 29'' which cools trailing edge 12 (that the Examiner equates to the claimed "trailing edge"). Rather, at most, the portions of Goodman cited by the Examiner show that some amount of fluid flowing through cooling passage 28'' flows through cooling passage 31 '' while some amount of fluid flows through discharge opening 29' '. See Appeal Br. 16-17; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 20. Obviousness rejection of claims 3, 9, and 16-18 Claims 3 and 9 Claims 3 and 9 depend from independent claim 1. Inasmuch as the Examiner does not demonstrate that Anselmi remedies the above-discussed deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, for example, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 9. Claims 16-18 With respect to the rejection of independent claim 16, from which claims 1 7 and 18 depend, the Examiner determines [i]t would have been obvious ... to modify the apparatus of Goodman . . . by forming the cutback slot so that it has a diverging shape as taught in Anselmi . . . for the purposes of matching the respective inclination of combustion gas streamlines flowable over the airfoil surface (col. 1 [,] lines 58[-]61 of Anselmi). Answer 6. We determine that the Examiner's reason for modifying Goodman based on Anselmi lacks the rationale underpinnings required to support the rejection. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For example, the Examiner does not establish that "forming the cutback slot so that it has a diverging shape" as claimed will result in any particular flow pattern. Rather, the portion of Anselmi cited by the 6 Appeal2014-003199 Application 12/492,663 Examiner states that "[a]t least some of the ejection slots are inclined at an acute ejection angle for preferably matching the respective inclination of combustion gas streamlines flowable over the airfoil surface," but does not teach anything about the shape of the cutback slot. Anselmi col. 1, 11. 58---61 (emphases added). Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16-18. Obviousness rejections of claims 6, 7, 11-15, and 19 Claims 6 and 7 Claims 6 and 7 depend from independent claim 1. Inasmuch as the Examiner does not demonstrate that Dean remedies the above-discussed deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, for example, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6 and 7. Claims 11-15 Independent claim 11, from which claims 12-15 depend, recites "casting an airfoil, wherein casting defines a cutback slot at a pressure side of the airfoil adjacent to a trailing edge of the airfoil; and removing material of the airfoil subsequent to casting to define a cooling hole from the cutback slot to the trailing edge of the airfoil." Appeal Br., Claims App. In response to Appellant's argument regarding the prior art's failure to teach casting the cutback slot, the Examiner determines that because "Corsmeier ... teach[ es] casting an airfoil and then drilling holes for cooling passages, that it is plainly obvious that the casting process would include defining a cutback slot since the cutback slot is part of the airfoil." Answer 20. We disagree with the Examiner that it is plainly obvious that Corsmeier teaches "casting an airfoil, wherein casting defines a cutback slot" as required by claims 11- 15, or that the combination of Goodman and Corsmeier would result in such 7 Appeal2014-003199 Application 12/492,663 a method, inasmuch as the cutback slot may be formed by drilling, for example, after the airfoil is cast. See Appeal Br. 24--25; see also Reply Br. 3--4. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of references discloses or suggests the claimed casting, and, therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11-15. Claim 19 Claim 19 depends from independent claim 16. Inasmuch as the Examiner does not demonstrate that Dean remedies the above-discussed deficiency in the rejection of claim 16, for example, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 19. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's written description, anticipation, and obviousness rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-20. REVERSED 8