Ex Parte Xu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201713543932 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/543,932 07/09/2012 JinQuan Xu PA21001U; 67097-1827US1 1019 54549 7590 12/18/2017 TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS/PR ATT fr WHTTNFY EXAMINER 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 WHITE, DWAYNE J Birmingham, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2017 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 JINQUAN XU, EDWARD F. PIETRASZKIEWICZ, MARK F. ZELESKY, GLENN LEVASSEUR, COLCHESTER, and DOMINIC J. MONGILLO Appeal 2017-002514 Application 13/543,932 Technology Center 3700 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15—191 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lacy (US 2012/0167389 Al, pub. July 5, 2012) and Bunker (US 2011/0293423 Al, pub. Dec. 1, 2011).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The claims on appeal were amended in an after-final amendment dated September 11, 2015. 2 The Examiner entered a new grounds of rejection in the Answer and contemporaneously withdrew grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a) over Lacy. Ans. 2-12. Appeal 2017-002514 Application 13/543,932 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to gas turbine engine components with cooling holes. Spec. ^ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A gas turbine engine component comprising: a wall having an inner face, and a skin; a plurality of cooling holes extending from said inner face to said skin, said cooling holes including an inlet extending from said inner face and merging into a metering section, and a diffusion section downstream of said metering section, and extending to an outlet at said skin; said diffusion section including a plurality of lobes, and a coating layer at said skin, with at least a portion of said plurality of lobes formed within said coating layer; a downstream end of said diffusion section extending to a straight trailing edge, and said downstream end being formed at least partially in said coating layer; and said straight trailing edge forms a downstream most end across the entire width of said cooling holes. OPINION Appellants argue all pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 2—4, Reply Br. 1-2. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Lacy teaches the claimed invention except for a straight trailing edge on the downstream end for which the Examiner relies on in Bunker. Ans. 2-3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lacy’s cooling holes with a straight trailing edge as taught by Bunker. Id. at 3. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary 2 Appeal 2017-002514 Application 13/543,932 skill in the art would have done this to reduce flow separation of the cooling air from the outer wall surface. Id. Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that Bunker does not teach a straight trailing edge of a cooling hole as claimed. Appeal Br. 3, Reply Br. 1. According to Appellants, Bunker’s plateau 60 is “not part of the hole.” Reply Br. 1. In response, the Examiner states Bunker teaches that the plateau is “usually sloped.” Ans. 12. The Examiner further states that: Since the plateau is sloping and acting as the bottom surface of the hole, it must certainly be considered a part of the cooling hole. As such, the straight downstream edge of the plateau must be considered to be the downstream edge of the hole. Id. at 13. The sole issue before us is whether Bunker discloses a straight trailing edge for a cooling hole. More particularly, we must decide whether the trailing, downstream edge of Bunker’s plateau 60 is part of a cooling hole. See Bunker, Fig. 4. Bunker is directed to an article, such as a gas turbine engine component, that exhibits cooling holes with chevron shaped outlets. Bunker, Abstract, 34. Top-view illustrations of certain embodiments of the cooling holes are depicted in Figures 3 and 4. Bunker, Figs. 3, 4. The downstream portion of the chevron shaped outlet features a “plateau” that can assume the shape of a triangle, a trapezoid, or any other polygon. Id. at 51. Furthermore, the front surface is usually sloped, e.g., gradually decreasing in size (like a ramp) until merging into the valley surface 48. In general, the shape and size of the plateau and the valley from 3 Appeal 2017-002514 Application 13/543,932 which it rises are important factors in maximizing the diffusion of cooling air that is channeled through the passage holes. Id. 49. With respect to the embodiment depicted in Figure 3, Bunker further discloses that: Inlet bore 34 is shown as extending from point X to point Y, i.e., ending as bore outlet 38. The remainder of the passage hole from bore outlet 38 toward surface 26 (i.e., in a direction opposite that of inlet hole 30) can be thought of as the "passage hole-exit." Id. 44 (emphasis added). Bunker’s foregoing discussion of Figure 3, taken in conjunction with the depictions and description of the Figure 4 embodiment, and further taken in conjunction with the description in paragraph 49 that the plateau is “sloped,” effectively refutes Appellants’ position that plateau 60 is not part of the hole. Comparing Figure 3 to Figure 4 of Bunker, it is reasonable that plateau 60 “can be thought of ’ as the “passage hole-exit.” Bunker, Figs. 3, 4, 44, 49. The Examiner’s finding that Bunker discloses a cooling hole trailing edge that runs straight across the entire width of the downstream end of the cooling hole is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15-19. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15-19 is 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 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation