Ex Parte Estevadeordal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2017

12972169 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
12/972,169 12/17/2010 Jordi Estevadeordal 246143-1 9360
6147 7590 12/26/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2017 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney @ ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORDI ESTEVADEORDAL, GUANGHUA WANG,
LUCY JOELLE SUMMERVILLE, and
NIRM VELUMYLUM NIRMALAN
Appeal 2017-001300
Application 12/972,169
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 24, 25, 27—29, 31, 32, and 34 of
Application 12/972,169 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(Oct. 22, 2015) 2—13. Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 General Electric Company is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001300
Application 12/972,169
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a system and method for
detecting spall2 within a turbine engine. Spec. 11. The application teaches
a multi-spectral pyrometry system that includes a wavelength-splitting
device configured to receive a broad wavelength band radiation signal from
a turbine component within the interior of the turbine, and to split the broad
wavelength band radiation signal into multiple narrow wavelength band
radiation signals. Id. 115. The system is further described as including a
detector configured to receive the narrow wavelength band radiation signals,
and to output signals indicative of an intensity of each narrow wavelength
band radiation signal. Id. The multi-spectral pyrometry system is
additionally described as including a controller configured to determine
emissivity of the turbine component based on the output signals, and to
detect spall on a surface of the turbine component based on the emissivity.
Id.
Claim 24 is representative of the pending claims and is reproduced
below with certain limitations in italics for emphasis:
24. A multi-spectral pyrometry system comprising:
a wavelength splitting device for receiving a broad
wavelength band radiation signal from a turbine component and
splitting the broad wavelength band radiation signal into at least
three narrow wavelength band radiation signals, wherein a first
narrow wavelength band radiation signal comprises a
wavelength range of approximately 1000 to 1100 nm, a second
2 “Spall” is described as “a condition in which portions of the TBC [thermal
barrier coating] detach from the surface of the component.” Spec. 13.
2
Appeal 2017-001300
Application 12/972,169
narrow wavelength band radiation signal comprises a
wavelength range of approximately 1200 to 1300 nm, and a
third narrow wavelength band radiation signal comprises a
wavelength range of approximately 1550 to 1650 nm; and
a controller for determining emissivity of the turbine
component based on the at least three narrow wavelength band
radiation signals, for detecting an area of spall on a surface of
the turbine component based on the emissivity, for determining
temperature of the turbine component based on the at least three
narrow wavelength band radiation signals; and for using a
measure of the area of spall and the temperature to determine
whether to continue operation of the turbine component.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Markham (US 2004/0179575 Al, published Sep. 16, 2004) in
view of Duderstadt (US 5,498,484, issued Mar. 12, 1996) and
further in view of Antel, Jr. et al. (US 7,633,066, issued Dec. 15,
2009) (hereinafter “Antel”). Final Act. 3—9 | 5.
2. Claims 25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Markham in view of Antel and further in view of Myhre (US
2005/0247066 Al, published Nov. 10, 2005) and Brummel (US
2007/0258807 Al, published Nov. 8, 2007). Id. at 9-1116.
3. Claims 27, 29, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Markham in view of Antel and further in view of
Kaplinsky et al. (US 5,822,222, issued Oct. 13, 1998) (hereinafter
“Kaplinsky”). Id. at 11—12 17.
3
Appeal 2017-001300
Application 12/972,169
4. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Markham in view of Antel and further in view of Kahn (US
4,326,798, issued Apr. 27, 1982). Id. at 12-13 1 8.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 32 as obvious over
Markham in view of Duderstadt. Final Act. 3—9 | 5. In support of the
rejection, the Examiner found that Markham teaches a controller for
detecting an area of spall. Id. at 5 (citing Markham, Fig. 2). Similarly, the
Examiner found that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention that ‘an area of spall’ has been
determined by measuring whether spall has occur[red] in the area as
illustrated in Fig. 2.” Id. Figure 2 of Markham is reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2017-001300
Application 12/972,169
Figure 2 depicts a sensor (including lens 10 and polished end of waveguide
14) and a graph showing surface temperature and TBC depth temperature.
The Examiner additionally relies on Markham’s teaching that “radiance is
collected from the surface of each blade B of a turbine engine rotor R as it
rotates . . . into the view of the lens 10" {id. 133) to support the finding that
Markham teaches a method and a controller for detecting an area of spall on
a surface. Answer 6. The Examiner relies on Duderstadt as teaching that “a
critical percentage of area is 10 percent for impending failure caused by loss
of TBC.” Answer 7—8.
In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds that “the combination
of the cited prior art teaches or suggests to discontinue operation of the
turbine when warned of impending catastrophic engine failure due to
excessive temperature and/or 10 percent loss of TBC surface area.” Id. at 8.
Appellants argue that Markham does not teach “detecting an area of
spall. . . and for using a measure of the area of spall.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply
2—3. Appellants contend that the correct construction of the term “area” as
used in the present claims is “a mathematical measure of the spatial content
of a spot/ planar zone.” Reply at 3. Appellants assert that Markham’s
teaching that “radiance is collected from the surface of each blade B of a
turbine engine rotor R as it rotates” is not equivalent to “using a measure of
the area of spall.” Reply 4.
Appellants’ construction of the term “area” is correct. The
Specification provides, in part, that the area of spall is calculated based on a
two-dimensional emissivity map:
regions of spall on the blade 56 may be detectable as areas of
increased emissivity. ... In certain embodiments, the controller
46 may be configured to measure the area of spall based on the
two-dimensional emissivity map 138. If the area exceeds a
5
Appeal 2017-001300
Application 12/972,169
threshold val[u]e, the controller 46 may inform an operator
and/or automatically deactivate the turbine engine 10 to
substantially reduce or eliminate the possibility of excessive
wear associated with loss of the TBC coating.
Spec. 146 (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification teaches to measure the
two-dimensional area of increased emissivity corresponding to the area of
spall. This differs from Markham which teaches that “radiance is collected
from the surface of each blade” (Markham 133) and that long and short
wavelength “radiance emitted from at least one spot on the surface of the hot
body are simultaneously and repeatedly measured” {id. 120 (emphasis
added)). Markham lacks a teaching of calculating the “area of spall,” as
required by the claim language.
Accordingly, Appellants have shown reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that Markham teaches a controller for using a measure of
the area of spall to determine continued operation of the turbine component.
Rejections 2—4. The Examiner rejected the remaining claims as
obvious over Markham in view of various secondary references. Final Act.
9—13. Appellants assert that each of these rejections is in error for the same
reasons as with regard to the rejection of claims 24 and 32. Appeal Br. 10-
11. As none of the secondary references are relied upon to teach “detecting
an area of spall. . . and for using a measure of the area of spall,” we
determine the rejections of claims 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, and 34 to be in error for
the same reasons as set forth with regard to the rejection of claims 24 and
32.
6
Appeal 2017-001300
Application 12/972,169
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 24, 25, 27—29, 31, 32, and 34 are reversed.
REVERSED
7