Ex Parte Boeke et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 2019

14706518 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/706,518 05/07/2015 Mark A. Boeke 54549 7590 03/28/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 67097-3205PUS1;80930US01 7874 EXAMINER WHITE, DWAYNE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2019 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 MARK A. BOEKE, JEFFREY J. DEGRA Y, and RICHARD M. SALZILL0 1 Appeal2018-004085 Application 14/706,518 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Riley (US 2014/0093361 Al, published Apr. 3, 2014). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 United Technologies Corporation (Appellant) is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-004085 Application 14/706,518 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's invention is directed to "an airfoil for a gas turbine engine," the airfoil including a first platform located at a first end of the airfoil, with a cooling passage extending through the first platform to protect the platform from hot combustion gases. Spec. ,r 5. "A cooling passage extends through the first platform and includes a first portion that has a first thickness and a second portion that has a second thickness and surrounds opposing ends of the first portion." Id. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Appeal Br. 5---6 (Claims App.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A component for a gas turbine engine comprising: a first platform located at a first end of a first airfoil; and a cooling passage extending through the first platform including a first portion having a first thickness and a second portion having a second thickness and surrounding opposing ends of the first portion; and a rib located between the first portion and the second portion, wherein the rib extends at an angle relative to the radial direction between zero and 3 5 degrees. DISCUSSION Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, and 16-19 together. See Appeal Br. 2--4. We decide this appeal on the basis of claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 6-14, and 16-19 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued together). The Examiner finds that Riley discloses all of the structure recited in claim 1, including "a rib (slanted region above reference number 120b in 2 Appeal2018-004085 Application 14/706,518 Fig. 7 ... ) located between the first portion and the second portion" of cooling passage 92 extending through platform 7 4, but that "Riley does not disclose the rib extends at an angle relative to the radial direction between zero and 35 degrees." Final Act. 3--4 (underlining omitted). The Examiner finds that Appellant has not disclosed that having [the] rib extend at this specific angle solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the cooling passage with the rib of Riley would perform equally well with an angle in the specified angle range as claimed by [Appellant]." Id. at 4. Thus, the Examiner determines that "it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the rib angle to fall within the claimed range." Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established a sustainable case of obviousness of the claimed subject matter because Riley "cannot support a finding that the claimed angle is a known result-effective variable and the Examiner admits that 'Riley is silent about this parameter being a result-effective variable."' Appeal Br. 3 ( citing Adv. Act. 2); see also Final Act. 3 (stating that "Riley is silent about this parameter being a result- effective variable"). This argument is unavailing because the Examiner's rationale in determining that the claimed angle range would have been an obvious design choice is not predicated on a finding that the angle of the rib (the slanted region between the first and second portions) is a result-effective variable. In fact, to the contrary, the Examiner's rationale is predicated on a finding that it appears that Riley's cooling passage and rib would not perform any differently with the claimed angle range. Final Act. 3, 4; Ans. 4. 3 Appeal2018-004085 Application 14/706,518 A claim feature that provides no novel or unexpected result is generally considered to be "an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art." In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); see In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that placement of catalyst within a bag retainer is not merely "design choice" when it overcomes a specific problem and the applicant( s) provided evidence of the benefits of such placement, and distinguishing prior cases in which design choice was properly relied upon because applicants "failed to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results"); see also In re Conte, 36 F. App'x 446,451 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (non-precedential) (holding that the difference between prior art's upward-opening slot and claimed downward-opening slot was insignificant design choice because both types of slots would retain the rubber band on the front of the gun barrel). The following quotation from In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990), is applicable here: The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. [internal citations omitted] These cases have consistently held that in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Appellant also argues that "[ t ]he claimed range is critical in that it allows the structural rib 114 to provide the ... benefits" of increasing the structural rigidity of the vane inner platform, reducing weight, and improving manufacturing of the ceramic core, and "the Examiner has not provided any objective reasoning that the 'slanted region above reference 4 Appeal2018-004085 Application 14/706,518 number 120b in Fig. 7' is able to" function as a rib to provide these benefits. Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 4. The Examiner responds that Appellant has not disclosed or claimed any structure beyond the transition region necessary to form a structural rib. Ans. 3. Thus, according to the Examiner, consistent with Appellant's underlying disclosure, Id. the transition region is a structural rib and[,] thus, the transition region of Riley forms a structural rib, and is capable of performing the same benefits, in the same way that the transition region of Appellant's disclosure forms a structural rib to increase structural rigidity, reduce weight, and improve manufacturing. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Riley's Figure 7, labeled "Fig. 7'," to illustrate the structure of Riley corresponding to the claimed "rib" located between the first portion (the portion having core height 120C) of cooling passage 92 and the second portion (the portion having core height 120B) of cooling passage 92. Id. The Examiner's annotated "Fig. 7"' is reproduced below. 11.~ transition â€¢ reitio11/1ib ----Â·-Â· --- Fig. T The Examiner's "Fig. 7"' is a cross-sectional view through the cooling passage and includes an annotation labelling the structure of platform 7 4 5 Appeal2018-004085 Application 14/706,518 defining the transition between the first portion and the second portion of cooling passage 92 "transition region/rib." See Riley ,r 27. Appellant's "transition region 112 is located between the first portion 108 and the second portion 110 to transition between the first thickness D 1 to the second thickness D2." Spec. ,r 43; Fig. 5. Appellant's Figure 5, which is a cross-sectional view of an example cooling passage, is reproduced below. See Spec. ,r,r 27, 28. 108 r-106 1 iO ...... , ......... ,+Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·1Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·( : : 0" I"! , , rfi Â·" , n1 wÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· ........... .J ! :,,\ ,, 112 Â£lfu2 Appellant's Figure 5 depicts an angle (B) defined between a radial direction (shown in dashed line) and transition portion 112. Likewise, Riley's transition region is located between the first portion and the second portion of cooling passage 92 to transition between first core height I20C and second core height 120B. Riley ,r 49; Fig. 7'. Appellant's Specification discloses that "transition portion 112 forms a structural rib 114 (Figure 3) to increase the structural integrity of the vane inner platform 94, reduces weight, and improves manufacturing of the ceramic core." Spec. ,r 43. Appellant's transition portion 112 is a "structural rib" in that it is where the material of platform 94 effectively protrudes into the cooling passage to transition from the first passage thickness DI to the second passage thickness D2. Likewise, Riley's transition region is a "structural rib" in that it is where the material of platform 7 4 effectively protrudes into the cooling passage to transition from first core height I20C to second core height 120B. Thus, in the same 6 Appeal2018-004085 Application 14/706,518 manner that Appellant's rib 114 increases the structural integrity of the platform, reduces weight, and improves manufacturing of the ceramic core, Riley's transition region/rib will do likewise. Like Appellant's structural rib 114, which extends at angle B relative to a radial direction, Riley's transition region/rib extends at an angle relative to a radial direction. Compare Appellant's Fig. 5, with Riley, Fig. 7 (or the Examiner's Fig. 7'). Riley does not specify the angle. Appellant's Specification discloses that "[i]n one example, the angle Bis between zero and 35 degrees and in another example, the angle Bis between zero and 20 degrees." Spec. ,r 43. Appellant's Specification does not give any indication that these exemplary ranges are critical or solve any stated problem, nor is it apparent why an angle within the claimed range would yield materially different results than the angle of Riley's transition region/rib. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 3, 4, 6-14, and 16-19, which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Riley. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, and 16-19 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7