Ex Parte Krückels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2019

13247429 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

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