Ex Parte Cowan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 11, 2017

13173903 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2017)

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. 13/173,903 06/30/2011 Curtis C. Cowan 67097- 1472PUS1;49204US01 9948 54549 7590 08/15/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER AMAR, MARC J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/15/2017 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 CURTIS C. COWAN and JORGE I. FARAH Appeal 2016-005648 Application 13/173,903 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision2 rejecting claims 1—16 and 20-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated June 11, 2015 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2016-005648 Application 13/173,903 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A nozzle liner for a rotatable nozzle, said liner comprising: a seal land, a rotatable seal in contact with the seal land for moving with said nozzle, said seal including: an inner liner; and an outer liner having a first diffusion hole for distributing cooling air if said rotatable seal is in a first position and a second diffusion hole for distributing cooling air if said rotatable seal is in said first position and if in a second position, wherein said first diffusion hole is spaced axially forward of said second diffusion hole relative to a longitudinal axis of said nozzle. REJECTIONS3 I. Claims 1—4, 9—13, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kehret (US 2009/0072044 Al; published Mar. 19, 2009) and Farah (US 2006/0137324 Al; published June 29, 2006). II. Claims 5—8, 14—16, and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kehret, Farah, and Cowan (US 7,377,099 B2; issued May 27, 2008). 3 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kehret has been withdrawn. See Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Decision dated October 1, 2015. 2 Appeal 2016-005648 Application 13/173,903 ANALYSIS Rejection I Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Kehret discloses outer liner 52 having first and second diffusion holes 48, as claimed. Final Act. 6 (citing Kehret, Fig. 4C); id. at fn2 (citing Kehret 131 (“a multiple of cooling liner openings 48”)). The Examiner also finds that Kehret discloses first hole 48 “axially forward” of second hole 48, however, the Examiner determines that Kehret does not disclose that such spacing is “relative to a longitudinal axis of said nozzle,” as claimed. Id. The Examiner relies on Farah for teaching “outer liner 28 includ[ing] cooling airflow openings 36 spaced along a longitudinal axis A ... of the exhaust nozzle 18.” Id. at 7 (citing Farah, Fig. 1). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to modify Kehret with Farah’s longitudinally spaced cooling openings for the purpose of facilitating an increased airflow resulting in enhanced cooling of Kehret’s gas turbine exhaust nozzle.” Id. at 8. In support, the Examiner reasons that “[i]t is standard for a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to use cooling openings to enhance cooling and therefore increase the life of a gas turbine exhaust liner.” Ans. 4 (citing Kehret 131 (“The arcuate cooling liner leading edge 42, 44 includes a multiple of cooling liner openings 48 which are preferably rectilinear slot shaped openings to distribute cooling airflow C over both the inner ‘cold- side’ and outer ‘hot-side’ surfaces thereof.”). Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner’s proposed modification would render Kehret “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,” 3 Appeal 2016-005648 Application 13/173,903 and that the Examiner’s rationale lacks factual support in that a person of ordinary skill would not have been led to make the Examiner’s proposed modification. Appeal Br. 3. In support, Appellants submit that Kehret discloses that “the ‘cooling liner openings 48 are located through the outer liner sheet 52 and are directed generally parallel to the cooling liner panels 36, 38 to direct a smooth film cooling boundary layer of the cooling airflow C,”’ (Reply Br. 2 (quoting Kehret 133)), and that ‘“[t]he provision of a smooth film cooling boundary layer of the cooling airflow minimizes thermal cycling and mitigates the necessity of exotic alloys in this area of the convergent section’” {id. (quoting Kehret 19)). Appellants argue that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would no[t] locate additional cooling liner openings axially spaced from the liner openings 48 in Kehret because the additional openings would not be parallel to the liner panels 36, 38 and would decrease the amount of flow directed parallel to the liner panels through the openings 48 to create a “smooth film cooling boundary layer” which “mitigates the necessity of exotic alloys” as intended in Kehret. [Rather], [t]he teachings from Kehret would lead a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to add additional liner openings 48, which are parallel to the liner panels 36, 38 and not . . . axially spaced diffusion holes as claimed. Id. Appellants contend that adding holes as proposed by the Examiner “would reduce [the] ‘smooth film cooling boundary layer.’” Id. Figure 4C of Kehret is reproduced below. 4 Appeal 2016-005648 Application 13/173,903 Figure 4C depicts “a section view of the convergent section cooling liner body cam interface,” including cooling liner opening 48 on a vertical, radial surface of the nozzle. Kehret 119. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that one skilled in the art would not have been led to modify Kehret as proposed by the Examiner, i.e., to add a hole, in outer liner 52, axially forward of hole 48 relative to the longitudinal axis of the nozzle as depicted in Figure 4C, because the additional, second hole would not direct cooling airflow parallel to panels 36, 38, and also would likely decrease the effectiveness of holes 48 for creating a smooth film cooling boundary layer, as disclosed in Kehret. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2-4, 9, 10, 20, and 21 depending therefrom. Independent claim 11 recites the same claim limitation as independent claim 5 Appeal 2016-005648 Application 13/173,903 1 with respect to axially spacing the first and second diffusion holes. See Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.). Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 and claims 12, 13, and 22 depending therefrom. Rejection II The Examiner’s reliance on Cowan does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, as discussed supra, and therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5—8, 14—16, and 23—25, which depend from claims 1 or 11. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—16 and 20—25 is reversed. REVERSED 6