Ex Parte Xu

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 2019

13544184 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/544, 184 07/09/2012 12208 7590 Kinney & Lange, P.A. 312 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 03/28/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR JinQuanXu 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. 59888US02-U73-012766 2147 EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, DANIELLE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2019 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): USPatDocket@kinney.com amkoenck@kinney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JINQUAN XU Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action (May 17, 2017) ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we are not informed of error in the rejections. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 1 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The Final Office Action is supplemented by additional explanation in an Advisory Action (Aug. 1, 2017). Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed subject matter "relates to cooling techniques for airfoils and other gas turbine engine components exposed to hot working fluid flow." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with selected limitations emphasized, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 1. A component for a gas turbine engine, the component compnsmg: a wall having a first surface and a second surface, wherein the second surface is exposed to hot gas flow, and wherein the wall defines a cooling hole extending through the wall from an inlet located at the first surface to an outlet located at the second surface, the cooling hole having: a metering section extending from the inlet to a transition; a diffusing section extending from the transition to the outlet and comprising: a first lobe diverging longitudinally and laterally from the transition and having a trailing edge; a second lobe diverging longitudinally and laterally from the transition and having a trailing edge; a first longitudinal ridge extending along the diffusing section between the transition and the outlet and adjacent the first and second lobes; a downstream end located at the outlet, wherein the downstream end extends in a straight and lateral direction from an end of the first lobe to an end of the second lobe, and wherein the downstream end is at least axially coextensive with the trailing edges of the first and second lobes; and a cusp on the transition, wherein the first longitudinal ridge extends from the cusp toward the outlet. 2 Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 Rejections I. Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Liang (US 7,997,868 Bl, issued Aug. 16, 2011), Papell (US 4,529,358, issued July 16, 1985), Bunker (US 2011/0293423 Al, published Dec. 1, 2011), and Lacy (US 2012/0167389 Al, published July 5, 2012). Final Act. 3-9. II. Claims 1--4, 8, 10-14, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Lacy, Papell, and Bunker. Final Act. 9-13. DISCUSSION Rejection I - 35 U.S. C. Â§ 103 (a) Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 For Rejection I, Appellant argues all claims together as a group. Appeal Br. 4--7. We select claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Liang teaches a component for a gas turbine engine, and a cooling hole in the walls of the component. Final Act. 4. The cooling hole has a metering section, a diffusing section, and a transition between them. Id. ( citing Liang, col. 1, 11. 18-20, Fig. 13). The Examiner finds Liang also teaches the claimed first and second lobes, the first longitudinal ridge extending along the diffusing section between the transition and the outlet and adjacent the first and second lobes, and a downstream end located at the outlet. Id. Appellant does not dispute these findings. 3 Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 The Examiner's rejection relies on Papell for teaching a cusp on the cooling hole, Bunker's teaching of a downstream end that extends in a straight and lateral direction and is at least axially coextensive with the trailing edge, and Lacy's teaching of a longitudinal ridge extending from the transition of the metering hole toward the outlet. Id. at 4--6. The Examiner determines one of ordinary skill in the art would have "add[ ed] the cusp of Papell onto the system of Liang, since doing so would help to create vortices in the passage that would result in improved cooling downstream of the cooling hole." Id. at 5 (citing Papell col. 4, 11. 45-53). The Examiner finds that "[ o ]nee the cusp [ of Papell] is added to the metering section of the cooling hole of Liang, it will extend to the transition between the metering and diffusing sections." Id. The Examiner also provides findings and reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined teachings from Bunker and Lacy to result in the claimed limitations. Id. at 5---6. Appellant argues "Papell fails to disclose a passageway with a diffusion section and, thus, fails to disclose a cusp on a transition between a metering section and a diffusion section let alone consider the heat transfer effects of such an arrangement." Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2-3. As discussed above, however, the Examiner's rejection is based on adding Papell's cusp to the metering section of Liang and extending to the transition. See Final Act. 5; see Ans. 12. Thus, Appellant's argument attacks Papell individually and does not address the combined teachings of the references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references."). To the extent Appellant's arguments in the 4 Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 Reply Brief challenge the reasoning provided by the Examiner for using a cusp such as that taught by Papell in Liang' s metering section, see Reply Br. 2-3, Appellant has not shown good cause for not presenting these arguments in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.41(b)(2) (2012) ("Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, ... will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown."). Appellant also contends that "even if cusp 27 disclosed by Papell is applied to cooling hole 10 disclosed by Liang, the resulting arrangement does not teach or suggest a cusp on a transition in which a first longitudinal ridge extends from the cusp towards the outlet" because "a person skilled in the art would not extend [Liang' s] inner flow guide 18 to a Papell-like cusp disposed in the metering section." Appeal Br. 5---6. "As a consequence," Appellant argues, "the modifying Liang in view of Papell more likely results in a cusp [within] a metering section of cooling hole 10 instead of a cusp on the transition that includes a first ridge extending from the cusp towards the outlet as recited by independent claims 1 and 12." Id. at 6. Appellant's explanation as to why a person of skill in the art would not extend Liang's flow guide to a cusp in the metering section or transition is similar to the reasons that Liang is argued to teach away from such a modification. See Appeal Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant argues Liang teaches that the flow through the passages in the diffusion section is governed by the outlet area of each passage, and argues that if one or more of Liang's flow guides 17 or 18 are extended such that at least one of them extends from the cusp on the transition, the inlet areas will be reduced. 5 Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that "[r]educing the diffusion passage inlet areas in this manner tends to control the flow through the diffusion passages via the inlet areas and not the outlet or exit areas as taught by Liang." Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner finds that "[ w ]hen making the modifications taught by Papell and Lacy, one having ordinary skill in the art would not just incorporate the teachings of Papell and [Lacy] without considering the impact these modifications would have on Liang," including "sizing the modified passages of Liang appropriately to gain the benefits taught by Papell and Lacy, while maintaining the benefits taught by Liang." Ans. 14. The Examiner also notes that Liang does not teach that the ridges cannot extend further upstream, and Appellant has not provided evidence that the modifications taught by Papell and Lacy would negatively impact the invention of Liang. Id. We agree with the Examiner that Liang does not teach away from a ridge extending from a cusp on the transition toward the outlet. "[M]ere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Even where the prior art describes an alternative as "inferior," it may not teach away. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use."). Here, Appellant does not point to any disclosure in Liang that would "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Rather, as noted by the Examiner, Liang does not address what would happen if one of the flow guides were extended to a cusp on the transition, and Appellant 6 Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 does not adequately explain why the Examiner errs in finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to make appropriate adjustments in inlet/outlet areas in view of the modification. Appellant also does not address the Examiner's finding that Lacy teaches a longitudinal ridge can extend from the transition to the metering hole to the outlet for the benefit of smoothing the transition of air through the cooling hole or the Examiner's reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to start the ridge at the transition of the metering hole to the diffusion section. See Final Act. 5---6 ( citing Lacy ,r 32); Ans. 12-13. Thus, Appellant's contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Liang to include a ridge extending from a cusp on the transition toward the outlet does not inform us of error in the rejection. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Liang, Papell, Bunker, and Lacy. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20, which are rejected on the same ground and not argued separately. Rejection!I-35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) Claims 1-4, 8, 10---14, 17, 18, and 20 For Rejection II, Appellant argues all claims together as a group. Appeal Br. 7-9. We select claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Lacy teaches a component for a gas turbine engine, and a cooling hole in the walls of the component. Final 7 Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 Act. 9 ( citing Lacy ,r,r 2, 20). The cooling hole has a metering section, a diffusing section, and a transition between them. Id. ( citing Lacy Fig. 5). The Examiner finds Lacy also teaches the claimed first and second lobes, the first longitudinal ridge extending along the diffusing section between the transition and the outlet and adjacent the first and second lobes, and a downstream end located at the outlet. Id. at 9-10 (citing Lacy Fig. 6). Appellant does not dispute these findings. The Examiner's rejection relies on Papell for teaching a cusp on the cooling hole, and Bunker's teaching of a downstream end that extends in a straight and lateral direction and is at least axially coextensive with the trailing edge. Id. at 10-11. The Examiner determines one of ordinary skill in the art would have "add[ed] the cusp of Papell on to the system of Lacy, since doing so would help to create vortices in the passage that would result in improved cooling downstream of the cooling hole." Id. at 10 (citing Papell col. 4, 11. 45-53). The Examiner finds that "[o]nce the cusp [of Papell] is added to the metering section of the cooling hole of Lacy, it will extend to the transition between the metering and diffusing sections." Id. The Examiner also provides findings and reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined teachings from Bunker to result in the claimed limitations. Id. at 10-11. Appellant argues that, for the same reasons argued against Rejection I, "Papell does not teach or suggest a cusp on a transition between a metering section and a diffusing section and a first longitudinal ridge extending from the cusp towards the outlet of a cooling hole." Appeal Br. 8. As with Rejection I, however, Appellant's argument attacks Papell individually and does not address the combined teachings of the references. In re Keller, 642 8 Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 F .2d 413, 426 (CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references."). Here, Lacy is relied on by the Examiner for teaching a transition between a metering section and a diffusing section, as noted above. Appellant's arguments do not directly address the Examiner's reasoning for modifying Lacy to include in the metering section the cusp taught in Papell, but Appellant argues that modifying Lacy in light of Papell renders Lacy unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as discussed below. Appellant emphasizes Lacy's teaching of boring through an outer surface of thermal barrier coating 200 to expose metering hole 122. Appeal Br. 8-9 ( citing Lacy ,r 27). Appellant argues: However, boring through coating 200 overlaying a cusped hole in which some of coating 200 is disposed about the cusp would result in: 1) damaging the cusp, 2) incomplete removal of coating 200 within the metering section, or 3) damaging the cusp and incomplete removal of coating 200 from the metering section. Each outcome is contrary to the intended goal taught by Lacy's method, which seeks to restore the features of the cooling hole following reapplication of coating 200. Id. at 9. Appellant contends Lacy does not disclose a method of removing coating 200 from a cooling hole metering section that includes a cusp, and concludes that "a person skilled in the art would not modify Lacy in view of Bunker, and Papell to provide a component in accordance with independent claims 1 and 12 because such modification would be contrary to the intended purpose of Lacy." Id. We agree with the Examiner that "Appellant is merely speculating that a cusp cannot be formed within the cooling hole since Lacy does not explicitly disclose a cusp." Ans. 15. Although Appellant argues that Lacy's 9 Appeal2018-007322 Application 13/544,184 "complex shapes" are formed at the cooling hole outlet and not related to features within the cooling hole metering section, Appeal Br. 8 ( citing Lacy ,r,r 5---6, 16, Fig. 2), there is no indication in Lacy that a cusp in the metering section could not be accommodated using similar methods for re-shaping the complex shapes at the outlet of the diffusing section. In this regard, we note that Lacy teaches using tools such as a water jet, laser, mechanical bit, or other device to remove overspray of the thermal barrier coating, and that the tool may be electronically controlled by a computer for greater precision in accomplishing the removal. Lacy ,r 28. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lacy, Papell, and Bunker. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2--4, 8, 10- 14, 17, 18, and 20, which are rejected on the same ground and not argued separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10