Hoyt Y. Chang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 13, 2019

14694086 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2019)

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.
14/694,086 04/23/2015 HOYT Y CHANG 80946US01 (15-176) 5642
52237 7590 08/13/2019
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
WALTHOUR, SCOTT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte HOYT Y. CHANG, BROOKS E. SNYDER,
and THOMAS N. SLAVENS
__________

Appeal 2019-000147
Application 14/694,086
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant, United Technologies Corporation,1 appeals under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 4–9,
12, 14–17, and 21–26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellant identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000147
Application 14/694,086

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
Appellant’s “disclosure relates to a gas turbine engine and, more
particularly, to a combustor section therefor.” Spec. ¶1.
The Rejected Claims
Claims 1, 4–9, 12, 14–17, and 21–26 are rejected. Final Act. 1.2
Claims 1, 8, and 21 are independent. Claims 1 and 21 are illustrative of the
rejected claims and reproduced below.
1. A heat shield for use in a combustor of a gas
turbine engine comprising:
a plurality of standoff pins that extend from a cold side,
said plurality of standoff pins at least partially surrounding an
attachment stud, said plurality of standoff pins arranged in a
ring pattern, at least one film cooling hole penetrating through
said cold side within a diameter defined by said ring pattern.

21. A combustor for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a support shell having a plurality of impingement cooling
holes; and
a heat shield having an at least partially hollow
attachment stud with a cooling air passage along an axis of said
at least partially hollow attachment stud, said at least partially
hollow attachment stud extending from a cold side of said heat
shield through a stud aperture in said support shell, said heat
shield having a plurality of standoff pins that extends from said
cold side to abut said support shell and at least partially
surrounding said at least partially hollow attachment stud, and a
plurality of stud cooling holes that extends through said at least

2 As set forth in the February 15, 2018, After-Final Amendment, which the
Examiner entered (see Ans. 2), claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 13 are canceled, and
claims 18–20 are withdrawn from consideration
Appeal 2019-000147
Application 14/694,086

3

partially hollow attachment stud transverse to the axis of said at
least partially hollow attachment stud.
Appeal Br. 16, 18.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. claims 1 and 5–7, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as anticipated
by Hanson3 (Final Act. 4);
2. claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, and 12–16, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), as
anticipated by Pidcock4 (id. at 6);
3. claims 8, 9, and 17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Hanson and Burd5 (id. at 9);
4. claims 12, 15, and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Hanson, Burd, and Mattia6 (id. at 11);
5. claims 21–26, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable
over Hanson, Burd, and Tiemann7 (id. at 11); and
6. claims 21–26, for nonstatutory double patenting, as being
unpatentable over claims 11–17 of Application No. 14/694,106.
DISCUSSION
Rejections 1–4
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite “said plurality of standoff pins
arranged in a ring pattern, at least one film cooling hole penetrating through

3 US 2014/0216042 A1, published Aug. 7, 2014 (“Hanson”).
4 US 2014/0190166 A1, published July 10, 2014 (“Pidcock”).
5 WO 2014/200588 A2, published Dec. 18, 2014 (“Burd”).
6 US 2014/0093370 A1, published Apr. 3, 2014 (“Mattia”).
7 US 2004/0093872 A1, published May 20, 2004 (“Tiemann”).
Appeal 2019-000147
Application 14/694,086

4

said cold side within a diameter defined by said ring pattern.” Appeal Br.
16, 18. Dependent claims 4–7, 9, and 14–17 incorporate this limitation by
reference via their dependency. Id. at 16–18; 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
The Examiner has construed this limitation as “includ[ing] standoff
pins, in any arrangement, located within some ring-shaped pattern.” Final
Act. 18 (emphasis added). The Examiner explained that the limitation
“include[s] any arrangement of pins within a ring pattern (i.e.[,] (a) the pins
could form a trapezoidal shape or any other shape which is contained within
a ring-shaped boundary or (b) even if the pins define the ring pattern, a ring
can be arbitrarily thick in the radial direction . . . .).” Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s construction is unreasonably
broad and that the limitation should instead be construed to mean, “[s]imply,
the standoff pins are arranged in a ring pattern, the ring pattern defines a
diameter, and . . . at least one film cooling hole penetrates through the cold
side within that diameter.” Appeal Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant. “[C]laim language should be read in light
of the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Appellant’s Specification
discloses standoff pins 120 arranged such that they form a ring pattern 122.
See Figs. 5, 7. It is within this ring pattern, in which at least one cooling
hole 108A penetrates through the cold side. See id.; see also id. ¶63. The
Examiner’s construction, that the plurality of standoff pins instead may be
arranged in any pattern, is both inconsistent with the Specification and
unreasonable. Further, it would render “arranged in a ring pattern”
meaningless, because a sufficiently large circle or ring could be drawn
Appeal 2019-000147
Application 14/694,086

5

around any structure. See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical,
Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (proposed construction that
rendered a portion of the claim language meaningless held improper).
All of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4–9, 12, and 14–17,
under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 (i.e., Rejections 1–4), are premised on
the Examiner’s unreasonably broad construction of “said plurality of
standoff pins arranged in a ring pattern, at least one film cooling hole
penetrating through said cold side within a diameter defined by said ring
pattern.” See, e.g., Appeal Br. 5 (attempting to read Hanson Figure 1 onto
claim 1). Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse Rejections 1–4.
Rejection 5
The Examiner rejected claims 21–26, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Hanson, Burd, and Tiemann.
Claim 26
Of claims 21–26, only claim 26 recites the limitation discussed above,
i.e., “said plurality of standoff pins arranged in a ring pattern, at least one
film cooling hole penetrating through said cold side within a diameter
defined by said ring pattern.” Appeal Br. 19. In rejecting claim 26, the
Examiner relies exclusively on Hanson for teaching this limitation. See
Final Act. 16. Based on a proper claim construction as discussed above,
Hanson does not teach the arrangement recited. Thus, for essentially the
same reason we reverse Rejections 1–4, we likewise reverse Rejection 5 as it
pertains to claim 26.
Appeal 2019-000147
Application 14/694,086

6

Claims 21–25
Independent claim 21 does not recite “said plurality of standoff pins
arranged in a ring pattern, at least one film cooling hole penetrating through
said cold side within a diameter defined by said ring pattern.” Appeal
Br. 18. Nor do claims 22–25. Appellant’s arguments with respect to these
claims (and others) are as follows:
Appellant is arguing that the particular novel arrangement of
cooling holes as recited and claimed by Appellant is neither
disclosed nor suggested by the cited references. The general
knowledge that impingement holes facilitate backside cooling is
not at issue and simply does not support the reconfigurations
argued by the Examiner. The rejections must necessarily fail as,
again, no proper motivation is pointed out by the Examiner to
combine references which provide significantly different
solutions to the backside cooling problems solved by Appellant.
Appeal Br. 14. These arguments are not persuasive because they are too
conclusory. Further, the Examiner specifically explains why these
arguments are unpersuasive in the Answer. See Ans. 7–8. Appellant does
not rebut any of Examiner’s points in that regard. See generally Reply Br.
Instead, Appellant erroneously asserts that adopting its construction of “said
plurality of standoff pins arranged within a ring pattern” (which we have
done above) “readily overcomes all of the pending rejections.” Id. at 1. It
does not, as claims 21–25 neither recite nor incorporate that limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Rejection 5 as it pertains to
claims 21–25.
Rejection 6
Appellant does not argue against the Examiner’s rejection of claims
21–26 for nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
Appeal 2019-000147
Application 14/694,086

7

11–17 of Application No. 14/694,106. See generally Appeal Br.
Accordingly, we affirm that rejection.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5–7 as anticipated by
Hanson is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, and 12–16 as
anticipated by Pidcock is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, and 17 as being unpatentable
over Hanson and Burd is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 15, and 16 as being
unpatentable over Hanson, Burd, and Mattia is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–25 as being unpatentable over
Hanson, Burd, and Tiemann is affirmed; the rejection of claim 26 over the
same art is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–26, for nonstatutory double
patenting, as being unpatentable over claims 11–17 of Application No.
14/694,106 is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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-IN-PART