Ex Parte Nakamata et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201814040025 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/040,025 09/27/2013 Chiyuki NAKAMATA 22850 7590 03/30/2018 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 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. 420047US4 l CONT 5894 EXAMINER GOYAL,ARUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2018 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): patentdocket@oblon.com oblonpat@oblon.com tfarrell@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte CHIYUKINAKAMATA, YOJI OKITA, JUN HOSOI, NAGA YOSHI HIROMITSU, ATSUSHI HIRATA, and TAKEOMI IDETA Appeal 2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 1 Technology Center 3700 Before: THOMAS F. SMEGAL, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge ENGELS. Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge JESCHKE. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify IHI CORPORATION as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Appellants' invention relates to a double-walled combustion liner for a gas turbine engine. Spec. 1-2. Appellants describe the liner as having, among other things, multiple impingement-cooling holes in an external wall of the liner and multiple "heat transfer enhancement pin-fins" formed on the outer surface of the internal wall of the liner. Spec. 2-3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A combustor for a gas turbine engine used in the gas turbine engine and configured to produce a combustion gas by combusting fuel in compressed air, the combustor comprising: a combustor case; a combustor liner installed inside the combustor case and configured to form a whole of a combustion chamber which is formed inside the combustor liner, the combustion chamber configured to combust the fuel; and a fuel nozzle installed in a front section of the combustion liner, the fuel nozzle configured to inject the fuel into the combustion chamber, wherein the combustor liner is formed into a double-wall structure including an external wall of the liner and an internal wall of the liner, a plurality of impingement-cooling holes are opened passing through and distributed over the external wall of the liner for part of the compressed air as cooling air to blow out towards an outer surface of the internal wall of the liner, each impingement-cooling hole has an equivalent diameter, a plurality of effusion cooling holes are opened passing through and distributed over the internal wall of the liner for the cooling air to blow out along an inner surface of the internal wall of the liner, a plurality of pin-fins are formed and distributed on the outer surface of the internal wall of the liner over an area where the internal and external walls of the liner are opposed to each other, 2 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 a top surface of each pin-fin is not in contact with an inner surface of the external wall of the liner, a ratio of a height of each pin-fin to the equivalent diameter of each impingement cooling hole is set in a range of 1.0 to 3.0, when a cross section perpendicular to a center line of the impingement-cooling hole is a circle, the equivalent diameter is a diameter of the cross section; or when the cross section is not a circle, the equivalent diameter is a hydraulic diameter of the impingement-cooling hole, and the impingement-cooling holes, the effusion cooling holes, and the pin-fins are distributed in a plurality of rows in an axial direction from the front section of the combustion liner to a back end of the combustion liner and in a circumferential direction thereof within a region from the front section of the combustor liner to the back end of the combustor liner. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, and 5-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Pidcock et al. (US 6,408,628 Bl; issued June 25, 2002) and Narcus et al. (US 2012/0247111 Al; published Oct. 4, 2012). Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Pidcock, Narcus, and Alkabie (US 6,964,170 B2; issued Nov. 15, 2005). ANALYSIS Appellants' Figure 4A, copied below, depicts "a cross-sectional view showing a main part of an external wall of a liner or an internal wall of the liner." Spec. 4. 3 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 FIG.4A PA 11(23) i ,~/ .,, f 3?c ~ _ 39 39c *-~~~~~~~~~~~311%~ 1.·.rr ZI H ~' ~91 ~A tuu y/:·:&>2~~;::3.;:;~.;;:??;;::~ ~· ( 1 )39 41( no ./ 41( ~5 :I 39 ,. ) 43 I 43 .·.-43 / \ 43 V ) \ ~-~--,.. \ \ '"--' ~ ' ) ' ' ,: 41 CA 37 41 CA Appellants' Figure 4A depicts impingement-cooling holes 39 having a diameter Din a liner's external wall 35 and pin fins 43 having a height H formed on the liner's internal wall 37. Spec. 7-8. Relating to those features, claim 1 recites "a ratio of a height of each pin-fin to the equivalent diameter of each impingement cooling hole is set in a range of 1.0 to 3.0." Appellants argue "the claimed relationship between the height of each pin-fin to the equivalent diameter of each impingement-cooling hole makes it possible to sufficiently enhance cooling effectiveness of the combustor liner while inhibiting an increase in weight of the combustor liner and inhibiting a rise in temperature of the combustor liner." Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec. p. 9, 11. 16-26). According to Appellants, ifthe claimed height-to- diameter ratio were less than 1.0, "the heat transfer enhancement effect by the pin-fin is not sufficiently exerted." Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec. p. 8, 11. 7- 9). Further, Appellants assert that if the height-to-diameter ratio were greater than 3.0, "there is no improvement in the heat transfer by the pin-fin and the weight of the combustor liner is increased." Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec. p. 8, 11. 9-13). The Examiner finds Pidcock discloses the claimed pin fins and impingement-cooling holes, but the Examiner states that Pidcock does not 4 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 provide dimensions for the pin fins. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds N arcus teaches that increasing the height of a pin fin provides additional cooling but also increases weight. Final Act. 3 (citing Narcus i-fi-f 17, 20, 27). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious based on Narcus's teachings to optimize the dimensions of the pin fins to provide proper cooling without unnecessary weight, and, because Narcus does not vary the diameter of the impingement-cooling hole, the Examiner states that optimizing the dimensions of the pin fins would also optimize the ratio of the pin height to the diameter of the hole. Final Act. 3--4 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), 5-6 (explaining that pin height is a result- effective variable and that a person of ordinary skill would therefore understand the height-to-diameter ratio is also a variable that is result- effective ); accord Ans. 2. Appellants argue the Examiner erred because, according to Appellants, "only result-effective variables can be optimized." Reply Br. 3 (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977); Ex parte Whalen, 89 USPQ2d 1078, 1083 (BPAI 2008)); accord Appeal Br. 8-9. According to Appellants, the prior art does not recognize a relationship between a height of each pin fin and an equivalent diameter of each impingement-cooling hole that achieves a recognized result such that the claimed relationship could be routine optimization. Reply Br. 3. The Federal Circuit has explained, however, that"[ w ]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456); see also Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 5 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 1349--50 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device). Here, Appellants' Specification states that Appellants performed testing on a large number of test pieces simulating a combustor liner with different pin-fin heights. Spec. 2-3. Notably, though, the Specification does not evidence testing different diameters of impingement-cooling holes, nor does Appellants' Specification describe other relevant variables and parameters, such as the number and arrangement of impingement holes, the number and arrangement of pin fins, or the shape of the pin fins. Without context for the impingement-hole diameter and related details, the Specification at most evidences testing different heights of undisclosed numbers of pin fins with undisclosed numbers of impingement holes having undisclosed diameters arranged in undisclosed arrangements under undisclosed conditions. See Spec. 2-3. From that testing, though, Appellants purport to have observed an optimized ratio of the height of the pin fins to the equivalent diameter of the impingement-cooling holes. Spec. 3, 9. Narcus teaches at least as much. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (comparing the level of details disclosed in an applicant's specification with the level of details disclosed in the prior art). As explained by the Examiner, Narcus recognizes pin height as a result- effective variable affecting cooling and weight. Final Act. 6 (citing Narcus i-f 17). Notwithstanding that Narcus does not convert pin height into a ratio with the diameter of its impingement holes, height does not stop being a 6 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 result-effective variable simply because one chooses to consider pin height as part of a ratio. See Final Act. 3 ("The height of the fin and therefore the ratio of the height of the fin to the equivalent diameter of the impingement cooling hole is found to be a result effective variable."); Ans. 2-3. Further, Narcus at minimum recognizes that adding additional airflow through impingement holes affects cooling. Narcus i-f 20 ("Additional coolant may be added ... from impingement holes in the outer wall of the combustion chamber."); see Final Act. 6 (finding Narcus i-f 20 teaches adjusting diameters of impingement-cooling holes). Under these facts, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding claim 1, including the claimed height-to-diameter ratio, obvious in view of the prior art. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F .3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (distinguishing Antonie; "In cases in which the disclosure in the prior art was insufficient to find a variable result-effective, there was essentially no disclosure of the relationship between the variable and the result in the prior art."); see also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (describing the normal desire of skilled artisans to improve upon what is already generally known can provide motivation to optimize variables); Aller, 220 F .2d at 456. Having considered the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we agree with the Examiner and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-9, for which Appellants rely on the arguments raised for claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9. 7 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte CHIYUKINAKAMATA, YOJI OKITA, JUN HOSOI, NAGA YOSHI HIROMITSU, ATSUSHI HIRATA, and TAKEOMI IDETA Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 Technology Center 3700 Before: THOMAS F. SMEGAL, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable in view of Pidcock and Narcus, and I would therefore reverse the decision to reject claims 1-9. Claim 1 recites, among other limitations, "a ratio of a height of each pin-fin to the equivalent diameter of each impingement cooling hole is set in a range of 1.0 to 3.0." Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). The Examiner provides two alternative bases to address this limitation. As the first basis, the Examiner identified the "ratio" recited in the limitation at issue as a result-effective variable. See Final Act. 3 ("The height of the fin and therefore the ratio of the height of the fin to the 9 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 equivalent diameter of the impingement cooling hole is found to be a result effective variable because of its effect on cooling .... "(emphasis added)). Based on paragraph 1 7 of N arcus, I agree with the Examiner (and the majority) that the record supports the finding that the "height of each pin- fin" is a result-effective variable. That does not, however, logically lead to the Examiner's conclusion that "therefore the ratio of the height of the fin to the equivalent diameter of the impingement-cooling hole" is also a result- effective variable. Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). As argued by Appellants, the record here does not show that the prior art recognized the recited "ratio" as a result-effective variable-i.e., "a variable which achieves a recognized result" (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)). See Appeal Br. 9 ("The art of record does not identify any relationship between a height of each pin-fin and an equivalent diameter of each impingement- cooling hole, much less any recognized result achieved from a relationship between a height of each pin-fin and an equivalent diameter of each impingement-cooling hole."). As the law currently stands, such a teaching appears necessary to support a rejection based on routine optimization. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977) ("The PTO and the minority appear to argue that it would always be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try varying every parameter of a system in order to optimize the effectiveness of the system even if there is no evidence in the record that the prior art recognized that particular parameter affected the result." (emphasis added)); see In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (discussing how the general rule from In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCP A 1955), "is limited to cases in which the optimized variable is a 'result-effective variable[]' In re Antonie, 559 F .2d 618, 620 (CCP A 10 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 1977)"); see also MPEP § 2144.05.II.B ("A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation."). As the second basis, the Examiner identified the "height of each pin- fin" alone as a result-effective variable that results in "optimize[ d] cooling." Final Act. 3 ("Therefore, height of the fin (96) maybe ... selected to optimize cooling such that a ratio of a height of each pin-fin to the equivalent diameter of each impingement-cooling hole to be in a range of 1.0 to 3.0 .... "). Under this basis, the Examiner takes the position that one of skill in the art would maintain the claimed "diameter" constant such that "optimizing the height of the pin-fin optimizes the ratio." Ans. 2-3. As noted above, I agree that the teachings in N arcus support the finding that the "height of each pin-fin" is a result-effective variable. See Narcus i-f 17. I would not, however, sustain the rejections on this basis. As an initial matter, I would determine that the record does not support the particular optimization proposed by the Examiner-i.e., varying the "height" of the set of pin-fins while maintaining the "equivalent diameter" of the impingement-cooling holes constant. See Ans. 2-3 ("Even though cooling is also a function of the diameter of the impingement cooling hole, Narcus is not concerned about varying that dimension. Therefore, the dimension of the impingement cooling hole is kept constant. Since the diameter of the impingement cooling hole is constant for one family of pin- fin heights, the ratio of the diameter of the impingement hole and the pin-fin height would be varying. Therefore, optimizing the height of the pin-fin optimizes the ratio."). Although both Pidcock and Narcus generally disclose 11 Appeal2017-001154 Application 14/040,025 impingement-cooling holes, neither reference discusses the diameter of the holes. See Final Act. 3 (discussing Pidcock, col. 5, 11. 12-13 and Narcus i-fi-120, 27). In my view, silence in the prior art as to the recited "equivalent diameter" of the impingement-cooling holes is not the same as teaching maintaining that diameter constant while varying the "height" of the set of pin-fins to achieve a certain result. See Reply Br. 3 ("There is no discussion in Narcus regarding the diameters of the inlet holes 54, much less that the diameters of the inlet holes 54 achieve any recognized result."). Moreover, to the extent the proposed optimization is sound, in my view, the Examiner has failed to explain why it would have been routine optimization to adjust the "height" of the set of pin-fins, maintain the "equivalent diameter" of the impingement-cooling holes constant, and thereby necessarily arrive within the particular claimed range of 1.0 to 3.0 for the recited "ratio." See In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reversing a rejection based on routine optimization because the rejection failed to explain why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention). 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation