San Quach et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

14949047 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
14/949,047 11/23/2015 San Quach 67097-3102PUS1;78953US02 1079
54549 7590 07/02/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THUYHANG NGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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 SAN QUACH, CHRISTOPHER KING, and
TRACY A. PROPHETER-HINCKLEY

Appeal 2018-005421
Application 14/949,047
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–13, 15–17, and 19–21.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies United Technologies Corp., as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appellant subsequently filed, on April 23,
2020, a “Real Party-In-Interest Notice Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.8,”
advising that United Technologies Corporation changed its name to
Raytheon Technologies Corporation on April 3, 2020.
2 Claims 4, 9, 14, and 18 are withdrawn. Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2018-005421
Application 14/949,047

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to cooling passages for a gas turbine engine
component. Spec. 1 (Title). Claims 1 and 11 are independent, and claim 1
is reproduced below:
1. A gas turbine engine component comprising:
a wall having an inner surface and an outer surface; and
at least one non-rectangular slot defined by the outer
surface and in communication with a slot passage comprising:
an inlet portion extending through the wall from an
inlet defined by the inner surface to an intermediate
portion; and
an outlet portion extending through the wall from
the intermediate portion to the at least one non-rectangular
slot, wherein the intermediate portion extending through
the wall and fluidly connecting the inlet portion and the
outlet portion.
Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.).
REJECTION ON APPEAL3
Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–8,
10–13, 15–17, and 19–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Gregg.4
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments focus on the limitation in independent claims 1
and 11 requiring “at least one non-rectangular slot defined by the outer

3 The Examiner’s rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
was withdrawn in the Answer. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 2 (withdrawing
rejection in light of entry of claim amendments); Adv. Act. 1 (mailed Oct.
19, 2017) (entering proposed amendments).
4 US 2005/0135933 A1, published June 23, 2005 (“Gregg”).
Appeal 2018-005421
Application 14/949,047

3
surface.” Appeal Br. 3–4, 5–6 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that
Gregg discloses “at least one non-rectangular slot (slot 50 being non-
rectangular in Fig 4) defined by the outer surface (slot 50 defined by the
outer surface 36 in Fig 3) and in communication with a slot passage (slot
passage connecting cavity 40 to slot 50 in Fig 3).” Final Act. 3. The
Examiner further finds that the “non-rectangular slot 50 is extending to the
outer surface 36 and having an exit or outlet on the outer surface 36,
interpreted as defined by the outer surface.” Id. at 2. As to the non-
rectangular requirement, the Examiner finds that “slot 50 [has] a non-
rectangular cross-section view in Fig 3 and a trapezoidal view in Fig 4.”
Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner relies on an annotated version of Gregg’s Figure
4, reproduced below.

Annotated Figure 4 depicts where the Examiner identifies “trapezoidal” slot
50 at an “exit portion.” Final Act 5.
Appeal 2018-005421
Application 14/949,047

4
Appellant argues that Gregg does not expressly or inherently disclose
a slot with a non-rectangular shape because none of Gregg’s figures show
the outer surface of the airfoil. Appeal Br. 3. According to Appellant,
“Figure 3 only shows one dimension of the port 50 at the outer surface
through a radial plane cross section and Figure 4 only shows one dimension
of the port 50 at the outer surface through a plane cross section extending
through port 50 in a radial direction.” Id. Appellant contends that in Figure
4 “the outer surface of the airfoil is not shown and the intersection of the
port 50 and the outer surface is shown by a single line.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner construes “non-rectangular slot . . . as an
opening that is not rectangular and that is in communication with a path.”
Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Gregg’s slot 50 has a trapezoidal shape in
communication with a slot passage connecting slot 50 to cavity 40. Id. at 3–
4. The Examiner further finds that the claims do not require a non-
rectangular shape in more than one view, and that at least one view from
Gregg shows the non-rectangular shape of slot 50. Id. at 5. The Examiner
also finds that the claim language “does not require . . . the outlet at the outer
surface to be non-rectangular,” and that Gregg discloses slot 50 as non-
rectangular “immediately adjacent the outer surface 36, i.e., defined by the
outer surface.” Id. at 6.
In its Reply,5 Appellant argues that the trapezoidal shape the
Examiner relies upon appears within the same structure the Examiner refers

5 Appellant’s arguments in its Reply Brief go well beyond the limited
arguments in its Appeal Brief. Compare Appeal Br. 4–5, with Reply Br. 1–
5. These arguments are arguably waived because they could have been
raised in the Appeal Brief (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), but we exercise our
discretion to address them despite any waiver.
Appeal 2018-005421
Application 14/949,047

5
to as the “outlet portion” and does not include structure defined by the outer
surface as required by the claims. Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant also argues that
the trapezoidal area “identified by the Examiner is not defined by the outer
surface because the portion is internal to the airfoil 20 and includes an
opening through an outer surface of the airfoil.” Id. at 5.
The central issue on appeal turns on whether the claimed “non-
rectangular slot defined by the outer surface” can include slots having
structure adjacent to the exterior of the outer surface that defines the shape
of the slot, as the Examiner found. The Examiner finds that the limitation
“does not require . . . the outlet at the outer surface to be non-rectangular,”
and relies on structure “immediately adjacent the outer surface,” while
Appellant argues that any such “internal” structure is not defined by the
outer surface. Ans. 6; Reply Br. 5. Based on our review of the claim
language in light of the Specification, we construe “non-rectangular slot
defined by the outer surface” as broad enough to include structure that
defines the shape of the slot immediately adjacent to the outer surface, as the
Examiner did here. The Specification does not support Appellant’s view
that only structure viewed from the outside of the airfoil can be used to
define the shape of the slot, and that structure immediately adjacent to and
inside the outermost surface cannot be relied upon when determining that
shape. To the contrary, the only figure showing the purported non-
rectangular slot from the exterior of the airfoil, Figure 2, depicts rectangular
slots 84. Spec. ¶ 45; Fig. 2. Accordingly, we must consult other figures in
the Specification showing the area adjacent to the outer surface to determine
how the slot(s) can be construed as being non-rectangular in nature. Figures
4 and 5, for example, show slots 84, 84A in cross-section, with the angled
Appeal 2018-005421
Application 14/949,047

6
walls defining slots with a trapezoidal shape. Id. at Figs. 4–5. Accordingly,
the Specification depicts the claimed slots with a depth that defines a non-
rectangular shape, supporting a construction of “non-rectangular slot defined
by the outer surface” as including slots having structure adjacent to the
exterior of the outer surface that defines the shape of the slot.
Gregg’s Figure 4 depicts a number of ports 50 disposed along an edge
of airfoil 20 and providing an air exit from airfoil 20. Gregg ¶ 25, Fig. 4.
Ports 50 are defined in part by trailing edge pedestals 100 between each port
50. Id. ¶ 34, Fig. 4. The Examiner relies on the trapezoidal shaped ports 50
(the claimed “slot”) created by the tapered portion of trailing edge pedestals
100 as they reach pressure side wall 36 (the claimed “outer surface”). Final
Act. 3, 5; Ans. 3–4. Gregg’s trapezoidal shaped slots are therefore formed
by structure immediately adjacent to and that extends to the outer surface of
airfoil 20. See id. As discussed above, the Specification supports
Examiner’s reliance on the structure immediately adjacent the outer surface
that defines the shape of the slots. Appellant does not argue that Gregg fails
to disclose the claimed slots if the structure immediately adjacent to the
outer surface can be considered when determining whether the slot is “non-
rectangular.” We discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that Gregg
discloses trapezoidal slots that meet the claim limitation requiring “non-
rectangular slot defined by the outer surface.”
Although Appellant’s arguments are largely premised on the
assumption that the claimed slots cannot include any structure immediately
adjacent to the outer surface, Appellant also takes issue with the Examiner’s
construction of the slot as “an opening that is not rectangular and that is in
communication with a path.” See Reply Br. 3–5. We need not reach
Appeal 2018-005421
Application 14/949,047

7
whether that construction accurately captures the claim requirements given
our agreement with the Examiner that the claim covers slots defined by
structures that are immediately adjacent the outer surface that form a non-
rectangular slot. Appellant does not argue that Gregg fails to disclose any
other limitations of the claims on appeal.
As to Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred by relying on
structure defining the trapezoidal slot as “within the portion identified as the
claimed ‘outlet portion,’” we see no inconsistency in the Examiner’s
findings. See Reply Br. 3; Final Act. 3–4. The claims require an outlet
portion extending from the intermediate portion to the slot. Appeal Br. 5–6
(Claims. App.). The Examiner’s reliance on an outlet portion of Gregg
downstream of its “intermediate portion” is consistent with Gregg’s Figure
4, which depicts a structure between intermediate portion 42 and the
trapezoidal shaped ports 50. See Final Act. 3–4; Gregg, Fig. 4. The
Specification discloses a very similar arrangement, with slots 84, 84A
depicted as adjacent to and overlapping with outlet portion 100. See Spec.
¶ 49, Figs. 4–5. The Specification does not consistently describe outlet
portion 100 as distinct from or overlapping with the slot, but the high degree
of similarity between the claimed arrangement, when viewed in light of the
Specification, and Gregg’s structure, shows that both structures include the
claimed slot and an outlet portion extending from the intermediate portion to
the slot. See Spec. ¶¶ 49 (describing outlet portion 100 as connecting
intermediate portion 98 and slot 84), 51 (describing outlet portion 100 as
part of slot 84A), Figs. 4–5; Gregg, Fig. 4. Whether the outlet portion and
slot are viewed as adjacent to one another or overlapping, both the
Specification and Gregg show an outlet portion extending between an
Appeal 2018-005421
Application 14/949,047

8
intermediate portion and the slot as required by the claims. See id. We
discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that Gregg discloses the claimed
slot, even if it forms a portion of the outlet portion of Gregg.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11. Appellant does not argue that Gregg fails to disclose any of
the limitations of dependent claims 2, 3, 5–8, 10, 12, 13, and 15–17, and we
therefore sustain the rejection of those claims for the same reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–13, 15–17,
and 19–21 as anticipated by Gregg.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–8,
10–13, 15–
17, 19–21
102(e) Gregg 1–3, 5–8,
10–13,
15–17,
19–21

Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–8,
10–13,
15–17,
19–21

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED