Ex Parte Krückels et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201913247429 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/247,429 09/28/2011 117185 7590 03/01/2019 Studio Torta (Ringfence) C/0 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jorg Kriickels 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. 0087748-000030 5409 EXAMINER PRAGER, JESSE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2019 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): ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JORG KRUCKLES, TANGUY ARZEL, JOSE ANGUISOLA MCFEAT, and MARTIN SCHNIEDER Appeal2018-002385 1 Application 13/247,4292 Technology Center 3700 Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-11, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Sept. 5, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Jan. 2, 2018), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 2, 2017), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Apr. 5, 2017). 2 Appellants identify "ANSALDO ENERGIA IP UK LIMITED" as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-002385 Application 13/247,429 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Invention Appellants' invention "relates to the field of gas turbines, such as a cooled component for a gas turbine." Spec. ,r 2. "The claimed invention is directed to a cooled component for a gas turbine, and to a gas turbine which includes a cooled gas turbine blade component." App. Br. 2. Claims 1 and 9 are the only independent claims pending in the application. Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed matter, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A cooled component for a gas turbine, which comprises: [ (a)] a wall having an outer side which delimits a hot gas passage of a gas turbine, and an inner side; [ (b)] a device for impingement cooling on the inner side, wherein the impingement cooling device has a multiplicity of separated impingement cooling chambers which are arranged next to each other for operation in parallel and for impingement upon by cooling air; and [(c)] impingement cooling plates which cover the impingement cooling chambers and which are equipped with impingement cooling holes, [(d)] wherein the impingement cooling chambers are placed to communicate with hot gas passage via separate film cooling holes which are respectively arranged in a corresponding one of the separated impingement cooling chambers for operation in parallel between the separated impingement cooling chambers, and [ ( e)] wherein a flow cross section of the impingement cooling holes in the impingement cooling plates of the individual impingement cooling chambers is selected with respect to static pressure which will occur during operation on the outer side of the wall. (App. Br., Claims Appendix 1 ). 2 Appeal2018-002385 Application 13/247,429 Rejections Claims 1-7 and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Brittingham (US 2008/0170946 Al, pub. July 17, 2008), Balkcum (US 6,471,480 Bl, iss. Oct. 29, 2002), and Pietraszkiewicz (US 2008/0211192 Al, pub. Sept. 4, 2008). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Brittingham, Balkcum, Pietraszkiewicz, and Tiemann (US 2004/0001753 Al, pub. Jan. 1, 2004). ANALYSIS On September 19, 2016, in a prior Decision on Appeal, the Board affirmed the Examiner's decision to reject then-pending claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a). Appellants filed a Request for Continued Examination on November 17, 2016, in which independent claims 1 and 9 were amended and new dependent claims 10 and 11 were added. Claims 1-11 are now pending. Independent claims 1 and 9 and dependent claims 5-7, 10, and 11 In rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Brittingham, Balkcum, and Pietraszkiewicz, the Examiner finds paragraphs 21-23 of Pietraszkiewicz teach limitation ( e ), which recites "wherein a flow cross section of the impingement cooling holes ... is selected with respect to static pressure which will occur during operation on the outer side of the wall." Final Act. 4. Independent claim 9 also recites limitation (e) and is similarly rejected. See id. Appellants contend the Examiner's finding as to limitation ( e) is unsupported because "Pietraszkiewicz does not disclose that a flow cross 3 Appeal2018-002385 Application 13/247,429 section of the impingement cooling holes in the impingement cooling plates of the individual impingement cooling chambers is selected with respect to static pressure which will occur during operation on the outer side of the wall, as recited in claims 1 and 9." App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants argue: At best, Pietraszkiewicz discloses that the "[p ]late hole diameter for holes 64 (if any) along the channel and the quantity/distribution of such holes may be chosen in combination with H2 to provide desired local impingement cooling. The quantities of the holes 64 along each region 140, 142, 144, and 146 may be chosen to maintain the desired pressures in those regions." ,r 23. The selection of plate hole diameters for holes 64 does not, however, amount to a selection of the quantity or distribution of holes 64 based on the static pressure which will occur during operation on the outer side of the wall. The above-quoted phrase "desired local impingement cooling" in ,r 23 of Pietraszkiewicz does not support the Examiner's apparent rationale that achieving desired impingement cooling would achieve a selection of the quantity or distribution of holes 64 based on the static pressure which will occur during operation on the outer side of the wall. There is no basis in Pietraszkiewicz for this apparent rationale of the Examiner. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded the Examiner's finding is unsupported by the teachings of Pietraszkiewicz. Appellants' Specification discloses: [T]he density and/or the distribution and/or the diameter of the impingement cooling holes or the flow cross section of the openings in the impingement cooling plates of the individual impingement cooling chambers is, or are, adapted to the respective thermal loading and/or to the respective static 4 Appeal2018-002385 Application 13/247,429 pressure on the outer side of the wall which prevails during operation. Spec. ,r 17. For example, Appellants' Figure 3 shows six equally spaced impingement cooling holes 18a in the impingement cooling plate 19a of impingement cooling chamber 13a in the region of the leading edge 16, and nine equally spaced impingement cooling holes 18b in the impingement cooling plate 19b of impingement cooling chamber 13b downstream in the region of the trailing edge 17. As cooling air enters impingement cooling chamber 13a via impingement cooling holes 18a striking against the inner wall to absorb heat from the wall and discharging it into hot gas passage 27 via film cooling hole 26a, it reaches the outer side of the wall forming a film to cool and protect against hot gas passage 27. Id. ,r 25. Because the leading edge 16 will have significantly higher hot gas temperatures and thermal load, and thus higher local static pressure, the pressure on the other side of the wall of impingement cooling chamber 13a should be correspondingly higher to dissipate heat accordingly, which is why the pressure in cooling chamber 13b will be lower in the flow path moving toward trailing edge 17. Id. ,I 26. Similarly, Pietraszkiewicz teaches in paragraph 21 that "an exemplary pressure in the flowpath 56 at the leading group of outlets 74 is an exemplary 300-400 psia whereas the pressure at a trailing/downstream group is about 50-7 5% of that." Pietraszkiewicz ,r 21. Pietraszkiewicz teaches in paragraphs 22 and 23 that the size, number, and distribution of the cooling holes may be selected to adapt the pressure in the cavity, so that the pressure difference allows each of the regions to be maintained at an associated pressure. "The pressure difference allows each of the regions to be 5 Appeal2018-002385 Application 13/247,429 maintained at an associated pressure above (e.g., 5-15% above) that of their highest pressure outlets 74." Id. ,r 22. Pietraszkiewicz teaches that the "quantities of the holes 64 along each region ... may be chosen to maintain the desired pressures in those regions." Id. ,r 23. In other words, Pietraszkiewicz describes the pressure in the flowpath and pressure in the cavity. Although Appellants take issue with the Examiner's finding, Appellants do not adequately explain why the pressure in the flowpath 56 from the leading edge to the trailing edge does not constitute the claimed static pressure. We interpret the pressure in the flow path that is reduced from the leading edge downstream to the trailing edge represents the local static pressure in each region. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Pietraszkiewicz teaches limitation ( e ). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5-7, 10, and 11, which are not argued separately. Dependent claims 2-4 Appellants contend that the rejection of dependent claims 2--4 is not supportable or disclosed by the cited prior art. App. Br. 10-11. The Examiner addresses Appellants' contentions with respect to claims 2--4 in the Answer (Ans. 3---6), but Appellants have offered no substantive arguments to rebut the specific underlying factual findings made by the Examiner. And we decline to examine the claims sua sponte, looking for distinctions over the prior art. Cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] 6 Appeal2018-002385 Application 13/247,429 distinctions over the prior art."). As such, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2--4. Dependent claim 8 Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the patentability of dependent claim 8, except to assert that Tiemann does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Brittingham and Balkcum, and that claim 8 is patentable based on its dependence on claim 1. App. Br. 11. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation