Ex Parte Cunha

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 8, 2015

12695229 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2015)

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.
12/695,229 01/28/2010 Francisco J. Cunha 0001948-US-AA(06-260-2) 7532
52237 7590 04/09/2015
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
KERNS, KEVIN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte FRANCISCO J. CUNHA

__________

Appeal 2013-006594
Application 12/695,229
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KALAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-006594
Application 12/695,229

2
Appellant
1
appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
20–23 and 26–34. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to serpentine microcircuit vortex
turbulators for blade cooling. Specifically, Appellant’s invention relates to a
cooling microcircuit for use in turbine engine components, such as turbine
blades, with a plurality of vortex generators within the legs through which a
cooling fluid flows to improve cooling effectiveness. Spec. ¶ 1. The
Specification further provides that it is desirable to increase the convective
efficiency of the cooling microcircuits within the turbine engine component,
and that one way to do so is to place internal features inside the cooling
passages. Id. at ¶ 19.
Independent claims 20 and 26 are reproduced below:
20. A process for forming a refractory metal core for use in
forming a cooling microcircuit, said process comprising the
steps of:
providing a refractory metal core material configured to
form a plurality of legs in a serpentine configuration; and
said providing step including forming said refractory
metal core to have a plurality of spaced apart wedge shaped
indentations on said legs in the form of wedge shaped vortex
generators which each increase in height from a base to a tip,
said forming step comprising preparing a mask material and
chemically attacking the refractory metal core to form said
wedge shaped vortex generators.

App. Br. 11, Claims App’x.

1
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation of Hartford, Connecticut. Appeal Brief filed December 11,
2012 (“App. Br.”) at 1.
Appeal 2013-006594
Application 12/695,229

3
26. A process for forming a refractory metal core for use in
forming a cooling microcircuit having vortex generators, said
process comprising the steps of:
said providing step
2
including providing a refractory
metal core material configured to have a plurality of legs in a
serpentine configuration; and
forming said refractory metal core to have a plurality of
spaced apart wedge shaped indentations on said legs in the form
of wedge shaped vortex generators which increase in height
from a base to a tip, said forming step comprising using a laser
beam to outline the spaced apart wedge shaped vortex
generators in the refractory metal core material.

Id. at 12, Claims App’x.
The Examiner maintains,
3
and Appellant appeals, the following
rejections:
1. rejection of claims 20–23 and 26–34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Inomata
4
in view of Snyder;
5

and
2. rejection of claims 20–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Inomata in view of Snyder and as
evidenced by Horiba.
6

2
We note that there is no antecedent basis for “said providing step” in
claim 26. In any further prosecution, this should be addressed.
3
Examiner’s Answer mailed February 19, 2013 at 3–4; Examiner’s Second
or Subsequent Answer mailed February 27, 2013 (“Ans.”) at 3–4. All
further citations to the Answer in this Decision are to the Examiner’s Second
or Subsequent Answer. Appellant indicates that its Reply Brief filed April
18, 2013 (“Reply Br.”) “is in reply to the Examiner’s Answers mailed
February 19, 2013, and February 27, 2013.” Reply Br. 1.
4
EP 0 845,580 A2, published June 3, 1998.
5
US Pub. No. 2006/0090871 A1, published May 4, 2006.
6
US Patent 5,846,878, issued December 8, 1998.
Appeal 2013-006594
Application 12/695,229

4
We have considered the claim groupings, and to the extent that the
claims on appeal are argued separately, we will address them separately
consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). The issues on appeal are resolved
based upon the correct interpretation of the claims as will become evident
from our discussion that follows. We affirm substantially for the reasons
provided by Examiner in the Answer. We add the following.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that there is no discussion in Inomata as to how one
would form the turbulence generators shown therein. App. Br. 6. Appellant
further argues that Snyder does not teach one of ordinary skill in the art to
form a refractory metal core, as it lacks any specific details of those
techniques and how one would use them to form the refractory metal core
being claimed. Id.
The Examiner responds that although Inomata does not disclose how
the turbulence generators are formed, it does show a final cast product with
the cooling passage in a serpentine configuration and having a plurality of
wedge-shaped vortex generators formed in a turbine blade. Ans. 5 (citing
Inomata, Fig. 1, elements 89, 87, and 90). The Examiner relies on Snyder to
show a way of forming a cooling passage having vortex generators in a
turbine blade by using a refractory metal core having enhancements in an
investment casting process. Id. at 3–4 (citing Snyder ¶¶ 25–26), 5. The
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to use the refractory metal
core of Snyder in an investment casting process for making the cooling
passages of Inomata in view of the prior art teaching as a whole. Id. at 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that each of the
references, individually, does not teach the claimed invention as a whole.
Appeal 2013-006594
Application 12/695,229

5
The Examiner has provided two references that teach elements of the
invention as a whole, and has articulated a reason to combine the two
references. Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s articulated reasoning,
other than to state that “one of ordinary skill in the art could not make the
airfoil with the cooling passages and the wedge shaped indentations of
Inomata et al. from the teachings of Snyder et al.” Reply Br. 2. However,
Appellant provides no additional support for this statement. Appellant does
not point us to any portion of the Specification or the references that would
support its assertions that Inomata and Snyder would not have been
combined by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Appellant’s
arguments do not overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case based on the
combination of Inomata and Snyder.
Regarding the Examiner’s citation of Horiba to demonstrate that
photo-etching is a well-known photo lithography (Ans. 4), Appellant argues
that Horiba is non-analogous art, because it relates to the manufacture of a
wiring layer in a semi-conductor. App. Br. 6. The Examiner notes that
Horiba is used for rejection of claims 20–23 only. Ans. 7. The Examiner
further replies that Snyder clearly teaches a photo-etching process (Snyder
¶ 25), and the Horiba reference is cited “simply to show the detailed step of
preparing a mask and chemically attacking the unmasked portion of the
material.” Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to
use the well-known photo-etching technique for forming enhancements in
Snyder’s refractory metal core and using the same in an investment casting
process for forming the wedge shaped vortex generators of Inomata. Id. at
5–6.
Appeal 2013-006594
Application 12/695,229

6
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis that, given the teachings of
Inomata and Snyder, and in view of Horiba if necessary as evidence for
claims 20–23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine the references to arrive at the present invention. As found by the
Examiner, Snyder teaches a photo-etching process, and Horiba merely
evidences that photo-etching is a well-known photo lithography. Ans. 4.
Thus, we are persuaded that, with respect to claims 20–23, the Examiner has
made a prima facie case, which Appellant has not rebutted.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
tc