UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 9, 2020

15107493 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 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.
15/107,493 06/23/2016 Lane Thornton 74988US02;
67097-2819US1
8708
54549 7590 04/09/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
WONG, ELTON K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2020 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 LANE THORNTON, MATTHEW A. DEVORE,
DOMINIC J. MONGILLO, and STEVEN BRUCE GAUTSCHI

Appeal 2019-005510
Application 15/107,493
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, 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, 6–
8, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” under 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005510
Application 15/107,493

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The Specification “relates to a cooling hole array for use adjacent a
leading edge of an airfoil.” Spec. ¶2.
The Claims
Claims 1, 6–8, 21, and 22 are rejected. March 20, 2019, Advisory
Act. No other claims are pending. Id.; Final Act. 1. Claim 1, the sole
independent claim, is illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A gas turbine engine component comprising:
an airfoil with a suction side and pressure side, and
extending from a leading edge to a trailing edge;
a plurality of cooling holes adjacent the leading edge,
with said cooling holes having a non-circular shape, with a
longer dimension and a smaller dimension, and said airfoil
defining a radial direction from a radially inner end to a radially
outer end, and radially outer of said cooling holes spaced
toward said radially outer end having said longer dimension
extending closer to parallel to said radial direction, and radially
inner cooling holes closer to said radially inner end having said
longer dimension extending to be closer to perpendicular
relative to said radial direction compared to said radially outer
cooling holes;
wherein said component has a platform which defines
said radially inner end;
wherein there is a transition zone intermediate said
radially inner and radially outer cooling holes with said
transition zone including a cooling hole having a longer
dimension that is non-perpendicular and non-parallel to said
radial direction;
wherein said transition zone includes a plurality of
cooling holes which have said longer dimension defining an
angle between 0 and 90° relative to said radial direction; and
Appeal 2019-005510
Application 15/107,493

3
wherein the angle of said plurality of cooling holes in
said transition zone increasing in said cooling holes radially
closer to said radially inner most cooling hole.
Replacement Claims App. (filed May 21, 2019), at 2.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s rejections before us are:
1. claims 1 and 6 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lee2 and
Liang3 (Final Act. 5); and
3. claims 7, 8, 21, and 22 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lee,
Liang, and Schulte4 (id. at 8).5

2 US 2006/0104807 A1, published May 18, 2006 (“Lee”).
3 US 7,563,073 B1, issued July 21, 2009 (“Liang”).
4 US 5,876,182, issued Mar. 2, 1999 (“Schulte”).
5 The Final Action also included an indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 6–8,
and 20–22 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Final Act. 4. That rejection was
based on recitations in claims 1 and 20, with claims 6–8, 21, and 22 being
rejected based on their dependency from claim 1. Id. In an after-final
amendment, claim 1 was amended and claim 20 was canceled. See March 6,
2019, Amendment. In a March 20, 2019, Advisory Action, the Examiner
entered the amendment of claim 1 and cancellation of claim 20 and implied
that the indefiniteness rejection was being withdrawn as a result. See
Advisory Act. 2 (“The proposed amendments cancel claims and resolve
typographical errors. The amendments do not resolve any art rejections of
claims still present so the same art rejections would still apply.”); see also id.
at 1 § 7 (entering the amendments), § 15 (no longer including canceled claim
20 in the list of rejected of claims). Despite this procedural history, the
Examiner’s Answer states: “Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office
action dated 02/07/2019 from which the appeal is taken is being maintained
by the examiner except for the grounds of rejection (if any) listed under the
subheading ‘WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS.’” Ans. 3. The Answer does
not identify any withdrawn rejections. See generally Ans. As best we can
discern, however, the indefiniteness rejection has been withdrawn, and we
render this Decision based on that understanding.
Appeal 2019-005510
Application 15/107,493

4
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1—Obviousness Based On Lee and Liang
The Examiner finds that Lee discloses the subject matter of claim 1
except “Lee does not expressly teach of arranging the longer dimensions of
leading edge holes.” Final Act. 5 (citing Lee ¶45, Fig. 1). The Examiner
finds that “Liang teaches of hot particle flow across an airfoil wherein the
radially inner particle flow is directed more perpendicular to the radial
direction while the radially outer particle flow is directed more parallel to
the radial direction” and “suggests aligning the film cooling flow to match
the hot particle flow, which would cause the hot particles to enter the
cooling flow stream.” Id. (citing Liang 2:36–42, 3:54–4:1, Fig. 2). The
Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the gas turbine engine component taught by Lee such that
the radially outer holes are closer to parallel to the radial
direction and the radially inner cooling holes are closer to
perpendicular to the radial direction and a transition zone as
motivated by Liang, since directing cooling air flow to align with
hot particle flow would provide protection to the airfoil.
Id. at 6.
Appellant concedes that “Liang discusses a hot particle path changes
between say 30 degrees and 50 degrees as shown in Figure 2” and that Liang
Figure 3 “shows slots having a ‘discharge angle’ that changes to match the
hot particle path.” Appeal Br. 3 (presumably quoting Liang 4:6). Appellant
argues, “[h]owever, the ‘longer dimension’ of all of the ‘slots’ appears
directly radially outward.” Id. Appellant is correct in this regard, as the
longest dimension of all of Liang’s slots in zones 30, 40, and 50 indeed are
parallel to the radial direction (i.e., vertically oriented in Liang Figure 3).
Appeal 2019-005510
Application 15/107,493

5
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the rejection. Ans. 3. More specifically, the Examiner
states:
When the teaching of Liang of orienting the axial direction (22)
of the cooling flow path to match the gradual increase of the hot
particle flow path is applied to the holes (34) of Lee, the
orientation of the outlets (44) of Lee will be determined by the
modified axial directions. The axes of the resulting cooling holes
of Lee modified by Liang are arranged such that the axes of the
radially outer holes are closer to parallel to the radial direction,
the radial inner holes are closer to perpendicular to the radial
direction, and a transition zone is present as seen by the gradual
transition of hot gas particle flow path in Figure 2 of Liang. The
orientation of the outlets of the modified holes are geometrically
dictated by the modified hole axial directions and follow the
same orientation of the resulting cooling hole axes.
Id. at 3–4.
We are not persuaded the Examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness. Notably, Lee’s holes 34 are in the pressure side of the
airfoil. See Lee Figs. 1–2 (ref. 34). As such, they are not “cooling holes
adjacent the leading edge,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear
how the modification of Lee based on Liang, even as refined in the Answer,
could render obvious the subject matter of claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claim 1, as well
as that of claim 6, which depends from claim 1. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under
section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.”).
Appeal 2019-005510
Application 15/107,493

6
Rejection 2—Obviousness Based On Lee, Liang, Schulte
All of the claims subject to this rejection, namely claims 7, 8, 21, and
22, ultimately depend from claim 1. Replacement Claims App. 2–3. The
Examiner does not rely on Schulte in a manner that could cure the deficiency
in the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 8–9. Accordingly, for similar reasons,
we reverse the rejection of claims 7, 8, 21, and 22.
SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6 103 Lee, Liang 1, 6
7, 8, 21, 22 103 Lee, Liang,
Schulte
7, 8, 21,
22
Overall
Outcome
1, 6–8, 21,
22

REVERSED