UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 23, 2020

2019006976 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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.
14/769,224 08/20/2015 Sarah Riley 71593US02;67097-2488PUS1 6690
54549 7590 06/23/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
WALTHOUR, SCOTT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2020 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 SARAH RILEY, MARK A. BOEKE, and SHAWN J. GREGG
Appeal 2019-006976
Application 14/769,224
Technology Center 3700
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5–14, and 16. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006976
Application 14/769,224
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to gas turbine engines and associated
components that have vanes including first and second cooling hole shapes
and first and second thermal barrier thicknesses.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A stator for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a platform supporting multiple vanes including a first vane
and a second vane, wherein the first vane includes a first region
and the second vane includes a second region, the first and
second regions arranged at a same location on the first and
second vanes, the first region includes a first cooling hole
configuration and the second region includes a second cooling
hole configuration, the first cooling hole configuration and the
second cooling hole configuration being different from one
another, the first region having a thermal barrier coating having
a first thickness, and the second region having a thermal barrier
coating having a second thickness that is different from the first
thickness, wherein the first cooling hole configuration includes
a first cooling hole having an oblong exit, and the second cooling
hole configuration includes a second cooling hole having a
conical exit.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kercher US 5,356,265 Oct. 18, 1994
Busch US 2005/0135921 A1 June 23, 2005
Lee US 2010/0047056 A1 Feb. 25, 2010
McMahan US 2011/0217159 A1 Sept. 8, 2011

Appeal 2019-006976
Application 14/769,224
3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5–14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Busch, McMahan, and Kercher.

OPINION
Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1, 2, 5–14, and 16 as a
group. Appeal Br. 3–5. We select claim 1 as representative of the group,
and claims 2, 5–14, and 16 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Lee discloses a gas turbine engine having
many of the elements recited in claim 1, but does not disclose (i) first and
second regions with thermal barriers of different thickness and (ii) a first
cooling hole configuration including a first cooling hole having an oblong
exit, and a second cooling hole configuration including a second cooling
hole having a conical exit. Final Act. 3–7. The Examiner finds Busch
teaches first and second regions with first and second thermal barrier
thicknesses. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds McMahan teaches a gas turbine
nozzle with multiple vanes, wherein one vane may have different numbers,
sizes, and/or shapes of cooling holes than another vane. Id. at 6. The
Examiner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it obvious to include cooling holes with an oblong shape, as taught by Lee,
in combination with cooling holes of a different shape, as taught by
McMahan, “to provide preferential cooling to address differences in heating
in the nozzle.” Id. (citing Lee ¶¶ 60, 62, 87; McMahan ¶¶ 20, 37).
As for the requirement in claim 1 that the second cooling hole
configuration includes a second cooling hole having a conical exit, the
Examiner finds Kercher discloses a vane with “film cooling holes with a
Appeal 2019-006976
Application 14/769,224
4
conical shape.” Id. (citing Kercher, 8:11–12, 18–21, Figs. 1, 2). The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to provide cooling holes
with conical exits in order to control the rate of cooling fluid flow. Id.
(citing Kercher, 8:12–15). Thus, according to the Examiner, the teachings of
Lee and McMahan would have made it obvious to use cooling hole exits of
an oblong shape and a second, different shape, while the additional teachings
of Kercher would have made it obvious to make the second shape a conical
shape.
Appellant presents three arguments in support of the patentability of
claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–4. First, Appellant contends “[t]he Examiner has not
identified any reason one would use the conical exit of Kercher instead of a
different cooling hole diameter, distribution, or pitch as taught by Lee or a
different number of cooling holes as taught by McMahan to change the rate
of cooling fluid.” Id. at 3.
In response, the Examiner refers to paragraphs 36, 37, 43, and 44 of
McMahan and finds that McMahan teaches the use of holes of different sizes
and of different shapes and that both of these practices provide a benefit.
Ans. 3–4. The Examiner reiterates that the rejection of claim 1 relies on
Kercher to teach the claimed conical shape and that the use of this shape
serves a purpose.2 The Examiner states that, contrary to Appellant’s
argument, “the references themselves suggest it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the oblong-shaped cooling holes of
Lee on one vane and the conical-shaped cooling holes of Kercher on the
other vane” in light of McMahan’s teaching to use cooling holes of different

2 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding that Kercher teaches the
claimed conical shape. See Appeal Br. 3–5.
Appeal 2019-006976
Application 14/769,224
5
shapes and Kercher’s teaching that conically shaped holes can be used to
control the rate of cooling fluid channel through the cooling hole. Id. at 4
(citing Kercher 8:12–15).
Appellant does not identify error in the Examiner’s reasoning for
modifying the cooling holes of Lee to include different first and second
cooling hole configurations (as taught by McMahan) and for one of these
configurations to include a cooling hole having a conical exit (as taught by
Kercher). Describing the arrangement of its cooling holes, McMahan states
“the relative sizes and/or shapes of the cooling holes 54 may vary to provide
less cooling in the vanes 46A and/or band segments 48A and 50A than in the
vanes 46B and/or band segments 48B and 50B.” McMahan ¶ 37 (emphasis
omitted). McMahan teaches that, aside from circular cooling holes, non-
circular cooling holes may be used, including “rectangular, square, or
triangular, among others.” Id. McMahan explains that some portions of the
vanes on its turbine may include one shape of hole, while other portions may
include a different shape. See id. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
that, in light of McMahan’s disclosure, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art
would have therefore understood that either the number or the shape of
cooling holes could be different on two adjacent vanes in order to produce
the intended preferential cooling effect.” Ans. 3.
As for the Examiner’s reasoning to implement a cooling hole having a
conical exit in the second cooling hole configuration (Ans. 4), Kercher
teaches controlling a rate of flow via the use of conical cooling holes
(Kercher 8:12–15). In other words, Kercher provides a reason for using
conical cooling holes. The fact that the shapes and sizes of cooling holes
disclosed in each of Lee and McMahan are adequate (before incorporation of
the conical shape taught by Kercher) for their intended purpose of
Appeal 2019-006976
Application 14/769,224
6
controlling cooling does not undermine the Examiner’s reasoning for
modifying the cooling hole configuration of Lee. Rather, McMahan teaches
the use of two different cooling hole shapes, lists certain shapes, and then
states that other shapes may be used. See McMahan ¶ 37. Thus, McMahan
itself suggests the use of shapes not specifically listed in paragraph 37.
Next, Appellant notes the Examiner’s finding that McMahan teaches
the use of differently shaped cooling holes, but contends that McMahan fails
to teach or suggest that any of these cooling holes should be conical. Appeal
Br. 4 (citing Final Act. 16, McMahan ¶ 37). For this reason, Appellant
asserts, the Examiner failed to provide an adequate rationale for the
proposed modification.
As discussed above, McMahan suggests the use of cooling hole
shapes other than rectangular, square, or triangular. See McMahan ¶ 37.
Accordingly, we see no reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would
consider the cooling holes disclosed by McMahan to be limited to any
specific shape. Further, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner
finds that Kercher teaches that the use of conical cooling holes would
provide the benefit of controlling flow. Ans. 4. Appellant does not contest
this finding. See Appeal Br. 3–5. Consequently, Appellant’s argument that
the Examiner failed to provide an adequate rationale for the proposed
implementation of a conical shape cooling hole exit is unavailing.
Finally, Appellant argues “paragraph [0052] of the pending
application explains ‘the conical exits 98 may provide more effective film
cooling, which compensates for a thinner thermal barrier coating on the first
cooling region.’ This is an unexpected benefit over other available exit hole
geometries that is not apparent from any of the cited references.” Appeal Br.
4.
Appeal 2019-006976
Application 14/769,224
7
In response, the Examiner finds that the conical cooling holes
disclosed by Kercher would provide the benefit of controlling fluid flow
regardless of the presence of a thermal barrier coating. Ans. 5.
Additionally, the Examiner states, “[t]here is no evidence on the record that
Kercher’s conical cooling holes could not or would not provide the benefit
disclosed by Kercher if a thermal barrier coating were present or that any
unexpected result would occur by providing an airfoil having a thermal
barrier coating and conical cooling holes.” Ans. 5.
In reply, Appellant reiterates that an unexpected benefit results from
the use of cooling holes having conical exits in combination with the
claimed thermal barrier coating. See Reply Br. 1–2. Additionally, Appellant
contends that no evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that the
Kercher’s conical cooling holes would function identically regardless of the
presence of a thermal barrier. Id. at 2. Specifically, Appellant states, “[i]n
fact, Busch teaches using different cooling configurations for vanes having
different thicknesses of thermal barrier coating” and “[t]hese teachings of
Busch suggest the cooling arrangements would function differently for
different thicknesses of thermal barrier coating.” Id. (citing Busch ¶¶ 69,
75).
Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of Examiner error because
the characteristic that Appellant touts as an unexpected benefit (more
effective film cooling) appears to be the same benefit Kercher teaches is the
result of using conical cooling holes. See Kercher ¶ 37. In other words,
rather than providing an unexpected benefit, Appellant’s cooling hole
configuration appears to perform as already described in the prior art.
Appellant provides no objective evidence or technical reasoning supporting
a conclusion the presence of a relatively thin thermal barrier would change
Appeal 2019-006976
Application 14/769,224
8
the expectation that the conical cooling holes can be used to control cooling,
and Appellant does not assert that any other benefit is provided. Even
assuming, for the sake of argument, that effective cooling is especially
desirable in areas where the thermal barrier is relatively thin, the result of
the use of conical cooling holes (more effective film cooling) is still the
same and would have been expected.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–14, and 16.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–14,
16
103(a) Lee, Busch, McMahan,
Kercher
1, 2, 5–14,
16

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED