Ex Parte Slavens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 2018

14804424 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/804,424 07/21/2015 Thomas N. Slavens 54549 7590 12/21/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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. 67097-3003PUS 1 ;77473US02 8421 EXAMINER ZAMORA ALVAREZ, ERIC J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2018 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS N. SLAVENS, BROOKS E. SNYDER, and ANDREW D. BURDICK Appeal2018-005220 1 Application 14/804,4242 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Feb. 7, 2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Apr. 20, 2018), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 8, 2018), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 20, 2017). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-005220 Application 14/804,424 BACKGROUND The Specification describes embodiments of an air foil structure including a suction side cooling circuit. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 4. CLAIMS Claims 1, 11, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. An airfoil structure for a gas turbine engine comprising: a platform including a radially inner side and a radially outer side; a root portion extending from the radially inner side of the platform; and an airfoil extending from the radially outer side of the platform, the airfoil including a suction side cooling circuit with at least two radially spaced segmented passages connected by at least one impingement passage. Appeal Br. 11. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) as indefinite. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 11-14, 16, 17, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Liang 372. 3 3. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Liang 372 in view of and Merry. 4 3 Liang, US 6,902,372 B2, iss. June 7, 2005. 4 Merry, US 6,254,333 Bl, iss. July 3, 2001. 2 Appeal2018-005220 Application 14/804,424 4. The Examiner rejects claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Lee5 in view of Liang 821. 6 5. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Lee in view of Liang 821 and Merry. DISCUSSION Indefiniteness With respect to claim 5, the Examiner finds that the limitation "the at least two segments" lacks antecedent basis. Final Act. 3. With respect to claim 14, the Examiner finds that the limitation "the multiple segments" lacks antecedent basis. Id. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that the limitation "in claim 5 is in reference to the 'at least two radially spaced segmented passages' recited in claim 1" and the limitation "in claim 14 [is] in reference to the 'multiple radially spaced segmented passages' recited in claim 11." Appeal Br. 3. We are not persuaded of error. Claims 1 and 11 do not recite any specific "segments" from which antecedent basis may be derived. Rather, these claims only recite "segmented passages." It is not clear if the "segments" recited in claims 5 and 14 refer to segments within a particular passage, segments within multiple passages, or to the passages themselves. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 14 as indefinite. We also sustain the rejection of claim 6 on this ground based on its dependency from claim 5. 5 Lee et al., US 7,097,426 B2, iss. Aug. 29, 2006. 6 Liang, US 7,980,821 Bl, iss. July 19, 2011. 3 Appeal2018-005220 Application 14/804,424 Anticipation Claims 1-7 With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Liang 3 72 discloses an airfoil structure as claimed. Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Liang 372 discloses an airfoil for a gas turbine including a platform 18, a root portion 16, and a suction side cooling circuit 42 with at least two radially spaced segmented passages 60 connected by an impingement passage 64. Id. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 by Appellants' arguments. First, Appellants argue that the triangular cavities 60 in Liang 372 "are in radially overlapping relationship such that the cavities 60 are not 'radially spaced" as claimed." Appeal Br. 3. We are not persuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner's explanation that although there may be some radially overlap between the cavities, they are nonetheless spaced apart radially. See Ans. 3--4. Further, Appellants do not provide an explanation as to why the claim precludes any radial overlap, and we see no such limitation in the claim. Second, Appellants argue that the Specification "differentiates between a suction side cooling circuit 86 and a trailing edge cooling circuit 84 such that the impingement cooling system 42 [of Liang 372] cannot be interpreted as the claimed 'suction side cooling circuit."' Appeal Br. 4 (citing Spec. Figs. 2--4, ,r,r 41--42). Appellants assert that Liang 372 describes the cooling system as being locating in the trailing edge. Id. (citing Liang 372 col. 6, 11. 7-9). We are not persuaded of error by this argument. The Specification describes an embodiment with separate trailing 4 Appeal2018-005220 Application 14/804,424 edge and suction side cooling circuits, but we determine that the Specification does not provide a limiting definition of what a suction side cooling circuit may be that would preclude Liang 372's cooling circuit from being considered a suction side cooling circuit as claimed. See Spec. ,r,r 40- 42. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants are merely advocating reading a particular embodiment into the claims. See Ans. 5. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7 which depend from claim 1 and for which appellants do not provide separate arguments. Claim 6 Claim 6 ultimately depends from claim 1 and recites "the at least one section includes multiple sections connected by u-shaped bends to form a serpentine pattern along the suction side of the airfoil." Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner finds that Liang 3 72 discloses u-shaped bends forming a serpentine pattern when a sinusoidal line is drawn connecting the segments 60 via passageways 64. Final Act. 5---6 (citing Liang 372 Fig. 4). Appellants argue that "the passageways connecting the triangular cavities 60 do not have 'u-shaped bends' as claimed." Appeal Br. 5. Without further explanation, we are not persuaded of error. First, we note that the claim language does not require that the connecting "passageways" have u-shaped bends. Rather, the claim only requires that sections are "connected by u- shape bends." Second, beyond this incorrect assertion of the claim requirements, Appellants do not explain why the Examiner's findings are erroneous. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 as anticipated. 5 Appeal2018-005220 Application 14/804,424 Claims 11-14, 16, 17, 20, and 21 Appellants raise separate arguments with respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 11, 14, and 16. See Appeal Br. 5-6. However, these arguments are directed to substantially similar claim limitations and reassert the same positions as those discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 6. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by those arguments here. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11, 14, and 16. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 12, 13, 17, 20, and 21, for which Appellants do not present separate arguments. Obviousness over Liang 3 72 and Merry Appellants do not provide separate arguments regarding the rejection of claim 18 over Liang 372 in view of Merry. See Appeal Br. 10. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 18 here. Obviousness over Lee and Liang 821 With respect to this rejection, we are persuaded of error by Appellants' argument that Liang 821 does not teach multiple radially spaced segmented passages as asserted by the Examiner. With respect to claim 1, for example, the Examiner acknowledges that Lee does not disclose at least two radially spaced segmented passages. Final Act. 9. However, the Examiner finds that Liang 821 teaches radially spaced segmented passages 11 and 17 that are connected by an impingement passage 18. J d. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds that because Liang 821 teaches that multiple channels 11 may be included and that separate channels may be connected to multiple slots 17, "the structure taught by Liang [821] discloses [] radially spaced segmented 6 Appeal2018-005220 Application 14/804,424 passages (11 and 17)" as claimed. Ans. 9. The Examiner provides the following annotated figure to support this position. Fig. 4' Fig. 4' is an annotated version of Liang 821 's Fig. 4, which "shows a cross sectional rear view of the trailing edge cooling circuit." Liang 821 col. 2, 11. 19--20. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to establish that Liang 821 teaches that elements 11 and 1 7 are "radially spaced." See Reply Br. 5. We fail to see, without further explanation, how the annotated figure provided by the Examiner shows anything other than that the slots 1 7 are completely radially aligned with connected channels 11 and are without any radially spacing. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 as obvious. For the same reasons, we are persuaded of 7 Appeal2018-005220 Application 14/804,424 error in the rejection of claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-21, which either similarly require radially spaced passages or depend from such a claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19- 21. Obviousness over Lee, Liang 821, and Merry The rejection of claim 18 over Lee in view of Liang 821 and Merry does not cure the error in the rejection of independent claim 16, as discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18 here. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 5, 6, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-7, 11-14, 16, 17, 20, and 21 as anticipated. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 18 as obvious over Liang 372 in view of Merry. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-1 7, and 19-21 over Lee in view of Liang 821, and we REVERSE the rejection of claim 18 over Lee in view of Liang 821 and Merry. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8