UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2020

14917879 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 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.
14/917,879 03/09/2016 Thomas N. Slavens 67097-2603PUS1;73180US02 6194
54549 7590 03/17/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
HASAN, SABBIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2020 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 THOMAS N. SLAVENS, MARK F. ZELESKY, ATUL KOHLI,
SEAN D. BRADSHAW, and STEVEN BRUCE GAUTSCHI

Appeal 2019-004875
Application 14/917,879
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
LISA M. GUIJT, 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 1–10,
12–15, 17, 18, and 20–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004875
Application 14/917,879

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The Specification “relates to a gas turbine engine including a
component having a leading edge, a pressure side and a suction side.” Spec.
¶3. “The component includes a first group of holes in the leading edge and a
second group of holes in one of the pressure side and the suction side,” and
further includes first and second core passageways that are separate from
one another but in communication with a respective group of holes. Id.
The Claims
Claims 1–10, 12–15, 17, 18, and 20–23 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No
other claims are pending. Id. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. Appeal
Br. 11–15 (Claims App.). Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a component having a leading edge, a pressure side and a
suction side,
the component including a first group of holes in the
leading edge and a second group of holes in one of the pressure
side and the suction side,
the component including a first core passageway and a
second core passageway separate from the first core
passageway,
the first core passageway and the second core
passageway in communication with a respective one of the first
group of holes and the second group of holes,
wherein the component includes a passageway formed in
a wall of the component and configured to feed fluid from the
second core passageway to the second group of showerhead
holes in series.
Id. at 11 (paragraphing added).
Appeal 2019-004875
Application 14/917,879

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
The following rejections are before us:
1. claims 1–10, 12–15, 17, 18, and 20–23, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b), as indefinite (id. at 2); and
2. claims 1–10, 12–15, 17, 18, and 20–23, under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
as unpatentable over by Santeler2 and Krause3 (id. at 3).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1—Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejected all pending claims because the recitation of
“the second group of showerhead holes” in independent claims 1 and 15
“lacks antecedent basis.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner asserted: “Claims 2–
10, 12–14, 17–18, 20–23 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.” Id.4
Claims 10 and 12–14
Claim 10 is independent, and claims 12–14 ultimately depend from
claim 10 (and not from either of claims 1 and 15). Because the Examiner
did not provide any basis on which to reject claims 10 and 12–14 as
indefinite, we reverse the rejection of those claims.
Claims 1–9, 15, 17, 18, and 20–23
As to the remaining claims, Appellant argues that antecedent basis is
not lacking; rather, it is provided by the prior recitation -- in each of claims 1

2 US 7,438,118 B2, issued Oct. 21, 2008 (“Santeler”).
3 US 5,931,638, issued Aug. 3, 1999 (“Krause”).
4 The Examiner rejected claim 4 as indefinite for the additional reason that
its “recitation of ‘a first passageway’ lacks antecedent basis.” Final Act. 2.
However, the Examiner ultimately withdrew that as a basis for rejecting
claim 4. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-004875
Application 14/917,879

4
and 15 -- of “a second group of holes.” Appeal Br. 7; see also id. at 11
(claim 1), 14 (claim 15). Appellant’s argument is that:
One skilled in the subject art is intimately familiar with
gas turbine engine design. Such persons are colloquially referred
to as “rocket scientists,” and typically have strong mechanical
and/or aerospace engineering backgrounds. Persons of such
intellect are capable of understanding that Appellant’s reference
to “second group of showerhead holes” referred back to the
previously-introduced “second group of holes,” considering that
the “second group of holes” are configured to generate a
“showerhead” film, as explained in Appellant’s disclosure, and
especially considering that there is no other “second group” of
holes introduced earlier in the claim to which Appellant could be
referencing. Accordingly, claims 1 and 15 are not indefinite.
Id. The Examiner responds that “limitations are not [to be] imported from
the specification.” Ans. 4.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument seeks
to import limitations into the claims. The limitation at issue, “the second
group of showerhead holes,” is recited in claims 1 and 15. Appellant relies
on the Specification, not to import any additional limitations, but rather to
show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
limitation refers back to the previously introduced “second group of holes.”
Appellant has the better argument in that the claims are clear in this respect.
Accordingly, we also reverse the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1–
9, 15, 17, 18, and 20–23.
Rejection 2—Obviousness
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 10, and 15 together. Appeal
Br. 7–9. For these claims, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-004875
Application 14/917,879

5
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “wherein the component includes a
passageway formed in a wall of the component and configured to feed fluid
from the second core passageway to the second group of showerhead holes
in series.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appellant’s sole
argument is that Santeler does not teach the “in series” aspect of this
limitation, as found by the Examiner. Id. at 8–9. For context, Appellant
directs us to its own embodiment illustrated in Figure 3. Id. at 8 (referring to
“holes (e.g., 96A–96C, 98A–98C)”). Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Figure 3, reproduced above, shows a partial view of component 84 of a gas
turbine engine. Spec. ¶¶26–28, 42. Figure 3 shows “suction side
passageway 102 leads from the core passageway 92B to the suction side
showerhead holes 98A–98C, and feeds the suction side showerhead holes
Appeal 2019-004875
Application 14/917,879

6
98A–98C in series in a flow direction normal to the radial direction of the
blade.” Spec. ¶48 (emphasis added). “Similarly, . . . pressure side
passageway 106 is formed in the pressure side wall 88W of the component
84, and feeds the pressure side holes 96A–96C in series.” Id. ¶49 (emphasis
added). As seen above, the arrangement of holes 96A–96C and 98A–98C is
in contrast to those of holes 94A–94C, which all originate directly from core
passageway 92A.
In the Final Action, the Examiner found that, in Santeler’s Figure 1,
“cooling fluid is fed spanwise through the main portion 48 and out through
outlets 44, and then 46 i.e. fed through in series.” Final Act. 4. In an
October 19, 2018, Advisory Action, however, the Examiner altered these
findings. Instead of relying on hole 46 as being allegedly fed further
downstream of hole 44, the Examiner relies on multiple rows of holes 44.
Adv. Act. 2 (citing Santeler 3:50–52 and finding that it discloses that main
passageway 48 “extends to two rows of outlets 44”). As summarized in the
Answer, the Examiner found:
Santeler teaches multiple inlets (42) in the spanwise direction of
the airfoil in communication with a passageway (48) which
would feed cooling fluid to multiple outlets (44) arranged in the
spanwise direction of the airfoil. By virtue of cooling fluid
entering from the root(bottom) of the airfoil, and consequently
entering the bottom inlet first, cooling fluid would exit the
bottom outlet first before exiting out of a another outlet above
i.e. fluid would exit from the bottom outlet, and then exit out
from another outlet above i.e. one after the other.
Ans. 8–9. In other words, Santeler’s cooling holes 44 are fed in series, albeit
in a root-to-tip direction. Id. at 6–7.
Appellant argues that “with respect to the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Advisory Action, that the Examiner “has not established that [the
Appeal 2019-004875
Application 14/917,879

7
two rows of outlets 44] are fed in series by main portion 48,” because
“Santeler’s Figure 1 is not particularly informative of Santeler’s flow
arrangement;” rather, “Figure 3 is informative, and resolves any doubt in
Appellant’s favor.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant argues that
“Santeler’s fluid (a) flows into one inlet 42, (b) appears to intermix with
fluid from other inlets 42 in the main portion 48, (c) naturally splits into
multiple flows, and (d) those split flows pass through a respective outlet 44,
46.” Appeal Br. 9. Thus, “[t]he outlets 44, 46 are not fed one after the
other, in sequence. Rather, the main portion 48 feeds the outlets 44, 46 in
parallel.” Id.
As we best can discern, Appellant is arguing that main portion 48
cannot be considered to feed the outlets 44 in series, even in a root-to-tip
direction, because main portion 48 is in communication with the core
passageway via multiple inlets 42 along the same root-to-tip direction. In
other words, according to Appellant and, again, as we best can discern,
Santeler’s cooling holes (i.e., outlets 44) are not fed in series because the
passageway from which they are fed (i.e., main portion 48) itself is fed by
multiple inlets.
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claim, which does not preclude multiple inlets or intermixing of air. The
claims recites “a passageway formed in a wall of the component and
configured to feed fluid from the second core passageway to the second
group of showerhead holes in series.” Thus, as long as the passageway feeds
two or more holes and the first hole is fed before the second hole, then the
limitation at issue (i.e., “in series”) is met. Appellant’s argument does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Santeler’s main portion 48
Appeal 2019-004875
Application 14/917,879

8
feeds, with respect to the rows of outlets 44, a first outlet in a row before a
second outlet in the row (i.e., in series), and therefore, Santeler meets this
limitation.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, along with that of
claims 10 and 15, which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Because Appellant argues the dependent claims, namely claims 2–9, 12–14,
17, 18, and 20–23, solely on the basis of their dependency from one of the
independent claims, we likewise affirm their rejection. See Appeal Br. 9
(“Each dependent claim should be allowed for at least the reason that it
depends from an allowable base claim (without regard to the other
patentable features recited therein).”).
SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–15,
17, 18, 20–
23
112(b) Indefiniteness 1–10, 12–
15, 17, 18,
20–23
1–10, 12–15,
17, 18, 20–
23
103 Santeler, Krause 1–10, 12–
15, 17, 18,
20–23

Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–
15, 17, 18,
20–23

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED