Ex Parte Nakamata et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

14040025 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

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