Ex Parte Spangler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2018

14620727 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/620,727 02/12/2015 Brandon W. Spangler
54549 7590 10/26/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
67097-2865 PUSl; 30228 3126
EXAMINER
THOMAS, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANDON W. SPANGLER and ATUL KOHLI 1
Appeal2018-003015
Application 14/620,727
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIELS. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, and 18-21 in
the present application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and
134(a).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, United Technologies Corporation, which is
identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") 1 ).
Appeal2018-003015
Application 14/620,727
The claimed invention is directed to a component for a gas turbine
engine, the component including a baffle provided in an internal cavity
thereof (Abstract). Representative independent claim 1 reads as follows
(App. Br. 7, Claims App'x):
1. A component for a gas turbine engine, comprising:
a baffle provided in an internal cavity of the component,
the baffle including a wall having an orifice therethrough, the
baffle further including a lobe extending from the wall and at
least partially covering the orifice;
wherein the engine component includes a first internal
cavity and a second internal cavity, the first internal cavity
provided adjacent a leading edge of the engine component, and
the second internal cavity provided adjacent the trailing edge of
the engine component.
Independent claim 18 is similar to claim 1, but does not require a
second internal cavity (App. Br. 8, Claims App'x).
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite (Final Act. 3).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7-12, and 18-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hada et al. (US 2010/0247290 Al, pub. Sep.
30, 2010 ("Hada")) in view of Liang et al. (US 5,077,969, iss. Jan. 7, 1992
("Liang")) (Final Act. 4).
2
Appeal2018-003015
Application 14/620,727
Rejection 1
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 21 as being indefinite, determining that it
is unclear as to whether the limitation "the central axis" refers to "a central
axis that each individual lobe inherently contains or a central axis that is
common to the plurality of lobes." (Final Act. 3). The Examiner states that
"[f]or the purposes of this prosecution the Examiner defines the limitation
'the central axis' as a central axis that is common to the plurality of lobes."
(Final Act. 3).
The Appellant does not substantively dispute this rejection, but
instead, states that it is "willing to cancel claim 21 following resolution of
this Appeal." (App. Br. 6). Hence, this rejection is summarily affirmed.
Rejection 2
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7-12, and 18-21 as obvious over
Hada in view of Liang (Final Act. 4 ). As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Hada discloses the claimed invention, but does not disclose that its baffles
(inserts 12, 13) have "a lobe extending from the wall and at least partially
covering the orifice." (Final Act. 4). The Examiner relies on Liang for the
disclosure of a baffle having lobes, 2 and concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art:
2 Liang refers to the structure corresponding to the recited "lobes" in the
subject claim as gas diffusion opening 24 having "baffle 28." (Liang, col. 2,
1. 35). However, like the Examiner and the Appellant, to avoid confusion
with the recited baffle of the subject claims, we refer to the pertinent
structure of Liang as "lobes" herein.
3
Appeal2018-003015
Application 14/620,727
to have modified Hada's invention to include a baffle further
including a lobe extending from the wall and at least partially
covering the orifice, as suggested and taught by Liang, in order
to provide a baffle that provides overall cooling (Liang -
Column 2, Lines 3-6) without a multiplicity of pieces (Liang -
Column 1, Lines 54-56).
(Final Act. 4--5; see also Liang, Figs. 1--4; Ans. 7)).
Substantially identical rejection is made with respect to independent
claim 18 (Final Act. 10-11 ).
The Appellant seeks reversal of the rejection, arguing that the
suggested modification of Hada "renders the reference unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose and changes its principle of operation." (App. Br. 3). In
particular, the Appellant argues that Hada teaches "an impingement cooling
technique in which cooling air is directed to the walls 14, 15 via discharge
holes 21" (App. Br. 3, citing Hada ,r,r 73-74; Fig. 7). According to the
Appellant, "impingement cooling is well known in the gas turbine engine
art" (Reply Br. 1) as indicated by its discussion in the Background of the
Specification (App. Br. 4, citing Spec. ,r 2), wherein "the inner surface of a
component is hit[] with high velocity air." (App. Br. 4--5).
The Appellant argues that "the Examiner has modified Hada in such a
way that Hada's flow no longer 'collides with' and 'spouts against' the
walls, which is strong evidence of non-obviousness." (App. Br. 4--5).
Hence, the Appellant argues that "adding the lobes of Liang to Hada would
change the direction that Hada' s fluid exits the discharge holes 21 such that
the fluid no longer 'spouts against' or 'collides with' the walls 14/15 in the
way Hada contemplates," thereby rendering Hada unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose, and changing Hada's principle of operation (App. Br. 4).
4
Appeal2018-003015
Application 14/620,727
The Appellant further argues that "there is no evidence Hada would benefit
from the changed flow direction." (Reply Br. 1).
We generally agree with the Appellant that the suggested modification
to Hada would change the principle of operation of Hada, and find the
reasoning articulated in support of the rejection to lack sufficient rational
underpinnings. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness")).
According to the Examiner, "neither Hada nor the Applicant has set
forth an accepted definition of what 'impingement cooling' is to mean."
(Ans. 2). However, there is no real significant dispute as to the meaning of
"impingement cooling." In that regard, the ordinary meaning of "impinge"
is "strikes or collides."3 Hada discloses that the cooling fluid performs
"impinging cooling in the front cavity 14" (Hada ,r 75); that the cooling fluid
supplied through the discharge holes 21 "spouts against the inner walls of
the front cavity 14 and rear cavity 15" (Hada ,r 73); and that "[t]he cooling
fluid that has spouted through the discharge holes 21 collides with the inner
walls ... to cool the inner walls." (Hada ,r 74). Liang also discloses that
"the inlet opening 34 is located to impinge on the upstream end of baffle 28
at location 36." (Liang, col. 2, 11. 60-61). Consistent therewith, the
Examiner defines "impingement cooling" to be "relieving heat through
3 "impinge: ... 2. to strike; collide": Random House Webster's College
Dictionary (1992).
5
Appeal2018-003015
Application 14/620,727
impact or collision." (Ans. 3). The actual point of dispute between the
Examiner and the Appellant is whether Hada, when modified to include the
"lobes" disclosed in Liang, maintains impingement cooling.
The Examiner explains that, "while the direction of the fluid would
change when the lobe of Liang is combined with Hada, the cooling fluid
would still 'collide or impact' (hence impinge) with the wall of the turbine
component as it travels from the opening of the lobe to provide heat relief."
(Ans. 5). According to the Examiner, the suggested combination "would not
prevent the flow from 'impacting' or 'colliding' with the inner surface of the
vane as the inner surface is curved and would cross the flow path of the
cooling fluid." (Ans. 3; see also Ans. 5 (including a modified Fig. 1 of
Hada)). The Examiner notes that there is no support in Hada "that
necessitates impingent to occur in or at a specified direction or position on
the wall" (Ans. 4), and that "impingement cooling may occur, even though a
fluid flow direction has changed." (Ans. 5).
However, the Examiner's assertion that the flow exiting the "lobes" of
Hada as modified by Liang "impinges" on the curved inner surface of Hada
so as to attain "impingement cooling" is not credible, and at minimum,
appears to be based on an unreasonably broad understanding of what
"impingement" encompasses. Liang discloses that its lobes having outlet
opening 32 "permit[] the diffused flow to pass parallel to the surface to be
cooled" (Liang, col. 1, 1. 66-col. 2, 1. 2), and "[e]ach [gas diffusion opening]
is arranged to provide a discharge of cooling air 26 parallel to the surface of
plate 20" (Liang, col. 2, 11. 30-33), such that the gas passes "adjacent to the
surface 20" (Liang, col. 2, 11. 47-56) and "establish[es] the film cooling of
6
Appeal2018-003015
Application 14/620,727
the surface." (Liang, col. 2, 11. 38-39). We do not agree with the Examiner
that such flow, which is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the
baffle wall, can be reasonably described as "impinging" on the inner surface
of the vane, merely because it would eventually contact the curved inner
surface of the vane. We also agree with the Appellant that the Examiner's
speculative characterization that "impingement cooling may occur" (Reply
Br. 3) undermines the rejection.
The Examiner also responds that the Appellant "fails to provide any
evidence as to how or why the combination of Hada and Liang ... would not
result in 'impingement cooling'." (Ans. 2-3). However, we agree with the
Appellant that the Examiner "improperly shifts the burden of proving
non-obviousness onto Appellant." (Reply Br. 2, 3).
We are also not persuaded by the Examiner's assertion that the
combination Hada and Liang would cause "the cooling flow from one hole
to flow over a greater area of the wall rather than just at one location, as
during impingement cooling with Hada, and therefore would provide a more
efficient cooling flow." (Ans. 7). As noted above, gas diffusion openings
24 of Liang function to cool surface 20 of structure 12, of which "lobes" are
a part, by providing a parallel flow of cooling air that establishes a "film
cooling of the surface." (Liang, col. 2, 11. 39). There is nothing in Liang
suggesting the use of the disclosed "lobes" for cooling of surfaces that are
spaced away from the surface upon which the "lobes" are provided such as
in Hada. Accordingly, the Examiner's assertion that a "more efficient
cooling flow" would result is speculative and the articulated a reason lacks
rational underpinnings.
7
Appeal2018-003015
Application 14/620,727
The Examiner also asserts that "a flow that is not directed directly into
the walls of the turbine component would be directed more towards the exit
of the cavity and therefore would flow faster thereby increasing cooling
efficiency" (Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 2), and that a person of ordinary skill
would know that increasing velocity of a flow over a surface increases
cooling efficiency (Ans. 7-8). However, the Examiner's modified version
of Hada's Figure 1 (Ans. 5), illustrating the included "lobes" of Liang,
shows that the lobes direct the flow to be perpendicular to the exit direction,
presumably to allow for the alleged "impinging" on the inner wall of the
cavity, and not toward the exit direction, which would not result in
"impingement" as alleged. In addition, the Examiner also fails to recognize
that, by increasing the outlet size of the opening of Hada through the use of
Liang's "lobes," the flow is diffused and its velocity is actually reduced (see
Liang, Figs. 2, 4, col. 1, 11. 63---66). Indeed, Liang discloses that "the air
passing into chamber 30 is diffused throughout the chamber and passes at
low velocity at exit 26." (Liang, col. 2, 1. 67---col. 3, 1. 1 ).
In view of the above considerations, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1 and 18. The rejection appears to be based
on impermissible hindsight and the reasoning for combining Hada and Liang
lacks rational underpinnings. In that regard, "factfinder should be aware ...
of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments
reliant upon ex post reasoning," because a claim composed of several
elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
elements was, independently, known in the prior art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
8
Appeal2018-003015
Application 14/620,727
The Appellant relies on the dependencies for patentability of the
remaining dependent claims (App. Br. 6). Accordingly, we reverse this
rejection as to claims 1-5, 7-12, and 18-20. As to dependent claim 21,
which stands rejected as indefinite, we reverse this obviousness rejection,
proforma. Cf In re Steele, 305 F .2d 859, 862-63 (CCP A 1962) (holding
that the Board erred in affirming a rejection of indefinite claims because the
rejection was based on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the
claims).
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner's rejection of claim 21 is AFFIRMED.
2. The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 18-
21 is REVERSED.
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-IN-PART
9