General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 7, 2021

2021002573 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2021)

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.
15/697,916 09/07/2017 Zachary Daniel Webster 318036-US-1/72266-0441 6208
91753 7590 12/07/2021
McGarry Bair PC / General Electric Company
45 Ottawa Ave. SW
Suite 700
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
EXAMINER
SCHARPF, SUSAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2021 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):
OC.Prosecution@ge.com
patents@mcgarrybair.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZACHARY DANIEL WEBSTER,
AARON EZEKIEL SMITH, GREGORY TERRENCE GARAY, and
KIRK D. GALLIER
Appeal 2021-002573
Application 15/697,916
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 and 28–34.1 Claims 21–27 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a cooling hole for a component of a turbine
engine. Spec. ¶¶ 1–5. Of the pending claims, two are independent—claims

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies General Electric Company as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-002573
Application 15/697,916

2
1 and 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A component for a turbine engine, which generates
a hot gas flow, and provides a cooling fluid flow, comprising:
a wall separating the hot gas flow from the cooling fluid
flow and having a heated surface along which the hot gas flows
and a cooled surface facing the cooling fluid flow; and
at least one cooling hole comprising a connecting
passage having a centerline and extending between an inlet at
the cooled surface and an outlet at the heated surface, with the
outlet defining a diffusing section having an increasing cross-
sectional area in a direction toward the heated surface, wherein
the inlet has an inlet dimension measured along a first plane,
intersecting an upstream edge of the inlet at the cooled surface,
and perpendicular to the centerline and the outlet has an outlet
dimension measured along a second plane parallel to the first
plane, intersecting a downstream edge of the outlet at the
heated surface, and perpendicular to the centerline, and wherein
the inlet dimension is greater than the outlet dimension.
Appeal Br. 35 (Claims App.).
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–20 and 28–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu (US 2016/0153283 A1,
published June 2, 2016). Final Act. 3–4.
2. Claims 1–20 and 28–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Xu and Casavant (US 20l5/0063996 A1,
published March 5, 2015). Final Act. 4–5.
ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation by Xu
We do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of the pending
claims. As claimed, the turbine engine component has a “heated surface,” a
Appeal 2021-002573
Application 15/697,916

3
“cooled surface,” and “a connecting passage . . . extending between an inlet
at the cooled surface and an outlet at the heated surface.” Appeal Br. 35
(Claims App.). Notably, as also claimed, the outlet has a dimension
measured along a plane “intersecting a downstream edge of the outlet at the
heated surface.” Id. (emphasis added).
As Appellant correctly notes, the Examiner errs by ignoring the claim
limitation reciting exactly how the outlet dimension is to be measured.
Rather than measuring the dimension of Xu’s outlet along a plane that
intersects a point where the downstream edge of Xu’s outlet meets the
heated surface, as called for by the claims, the Examiner measures Xu’s
outlet dimension along a plane that intersects a point within Xu’s cooling
passage. See Final Act. 4 (annotating Xu, Fig. 3B). The Examiner’s
measurement of Xu’s outlet dimension amounts to error because it is
different from the outlet dimension defined by the claims. Indeed, the
Examiner’s interpretation of the location of Xu’s outlet is inconsistent with
Xu’s own disclosure, which, like the claims, defines the outlet as being “at
second surface 108,” which is along the heated surface “H” of Xu’s Figure
3B, not along interior surfaces 120, 122 of the cooling passage. Xu ¶ 47.
Given that error, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the claims as
being anticipated by Xu.
B. Obvious Over Xu and Casavant
Appellant argues claims 1–10 and 28–34 together as “Group A” and
argues claims 11–20 together as “Group B.” See Appeal Br. 16, 30,
respectively. We select claims 1 and 11 for review, with their respective
dependent claims standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Appeal 2021-002573
Application 15/697,916

4
1. Claims 1–10 and 28–34
Perceiving a weakness in the anticipation rejection of the claims, the
Examiner puts forth an alternative rejection based on obviousness over the
combined teachings of Xu and Casavant. See Final Act. 4. According to the
Examiner, in the event Xu falls short of teaching that its cooling passage has
an inlet dimension greater than the outlet dimension, Casavant nonetheless
teaches reducing the dimension of the outlet at the heated surface of a
turbine component relative to the dimension of the inlet at the cooled surface
of the component. Id. (citing Casavant ¶ 30, Fig. 4 (elements 92 and 94)).
With that teaching in mind, the Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art of turbine engines to decrease the size of the
outlet at the heated surface of Xu’s turbine component because Casavant
recognizes that such a modification “enables the fluid to increase in velocity
as it exits the outlet, which in turn provides for more convective cooling
fluid flow and cools the turbine element faster.” Id. We agree.
The record amply supports the Examiner’s findings and reasoning.
We have considered Appellant’s various arguments, but do not find them
persuasive. See Appeal Br. 19–30. To begin, Appellant argues that the
“cooling hole” as taught by Xu (and claimed by Appellant) “is not the same
as the through passage in the inducer of Casavant.” Appeal Br. 20.
Although it is true that Xu’s cooling hole is through a turbine wall whereas
Casavant’s cooling passage is through an inducer assembly, both are
nonetheless directed to improving cooling performance in the turbine section
of the engine. More specifically, as expressly taught by Casavant, “flow
passage 35” is configured with an inlet width greater than an outlet width in
order to “provide more convective cooling fluid flow which results in faster
Appeal 2021-002573
Application 15/697,916

5
cooling to the turbine section 22 as the fluid flow 50 would reach the turbine
section 22 more quickly.” Casavant ¶ 30 (emphases added). Similar to
Casavant, Xu teaches that its “cooling hole” is configured to have a passage
of decreasing dimension relative to the hole’s inlet dimension 114, which Xu
describes as “metering section 110,” in order “to regulate the cooling fluid
flow between inlet 114 and outlet 116” and “improve downstream cooling
performance” in the engine’s turbine section. Id. ¶¶ 49, 53. Xu ¶¶ 47–49,
53; see also id., Figs. 3A, 3B (depicting “metering section 110” converging
along axis A between inlet 114 and outlet 116). Although the decreasing
dimension of Xu’s so-called “metering section” does not extend all the way
to heated surface 108, the Examiner relies on Casavant for that teaching.
See Ans. 14–15 (¶¶ 44–45).
In particular, the Examiner’s proposed combination would simply
maintain Xu’s teaching of decreasing the dimension of the cooling passage
relative to that of the inlet while also incorporating Casavant’s teaching of
maintaining the decreased dimension all the way to the heated surface. In
other words, the Examiner proposes to incorporate Casavant’s teaching in
place of Xu’s additional teaching of providing “transition region 128” as
passage approaches the heated surface. Id. ¶ 53. Nowhere do we discern,
nor does Appellant persuasively explain, that Xu’s additional teaching of
providing the transition region is critical to regulating cooling flow and
improving cooling performance as opposed to merely being supplemental to
Xu’s basic teaching of decreasing the passage’s dimension relative to the
inlet dimension. Instead, the record amply supports why one skilled in the
art would have understood Casavant’s teaching of an ever-decreasing
dimension for the cooling passage as applying equally to Xu’s cooling hole
Appeal 2021-002573
Application 15/697,916

6
whose purpose is also to improve cooling of the engine’s turbine section.
Thus, we reject Appellant’s attempt to draw a false distinction between
Casavant’s cooling passage and Xu’s cooling hole.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s rejection “fails to provide
any logical reasoning supported in fact drawn from the references
themselves for combining the disclosures of Xu and Casavant.” Appeal
Br. 23. According to Appellant, “nothing in Xu teaches or suggests a need
for increase in velocity of the cooling hole exiting the outlet.” Id. We
disagree. Although Xu may not be concerned specifically with increasing
velocity of the cooling flow, it nonetheless repeatedly conveys that the
configuration of the cooling hole improves downstream cooling performance
across hot surfaces in the turbine section. See Xu ¶¶ 2, 30, 53. Casavant is
no different, teaching that increasing the size of the inlet relative to the outlet
of a cooling passage positively effects cooling performance by providing
“more convective cooling fluid flow” that “reach[es] the turbine section 22
more quickly.” Casavant ¶ 30. Together, those disclosures by Xu and
Casavant provide preponderant evidentiary support for the Examiner’s
reason to combine their respective teachings.
As for Appellant’s argument that “[a]n increase in velocity of the fluid
flow for Xu, as taught by Casavant, would increase separation and flow
mixing, which is directly opposite of the intended purpose of Xu,” it is
unpersuasive because it is nothing more than a naked assertion devoid of
evidentiary support in the record. See Appeal Br. 27. Moreover, we reject
the notion that Casavant’s teaching is “directly opposite” that of Xu. Id. As
explained above, Xu’s teaching of a metering section that reduces the
dimension of the cooling passage relative to that of the inlet for the purpose
Appeal 2021-002573
Application 15/697,916

7
of regulating air flow and improving cooling performance in the turbine
section of the engine is no different than that expressed by Casavant
regarding the configuration of its cooling passage.
We also reject the notion that “Casavant is not analogous art.” Appeal
Br. 29. In this case, Casavant is from the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention, i.e., turbine engine components, not to mention
reasonably pertinent to the same problem as the inventor, i.e., a cooling
passage configured to route cooling fluid flow to the turbine section of the
engine. Compare Casavant ¶¶ 19, 22, 30, with Spec. ¶¶ 1–4, 22. Thus, we
are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument to the contrary.
Having considered all of Appellant’s arguments, we deem them
unpersuasive of indicating error in the Examiner’s rejection. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2–
10 and 28–34, which are not argued separately.
2. Claims 11–20
In contesting the rejection of independent claim 11, Appellant relies
on the same arguments as presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 31–34. For
the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we are also unpersuaded
by Appellant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 11. Thus,
we sustain the rejection of claim 11, as well as dependent claims 12–20, as
being unpatentable over Xu and Casavant.
Appeal 2021-002573
Application 15/697,916

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20, 28–34 102(a)(1),
(a)(2)
Xu 1–20, 28–34
1–20, 28–34 103(a) Xu, Casavant 1–20, 28–34
Overall
Outcome
1–20, 28–34

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED