KAUFMAN, Eleanor D. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 10, 2019

14713186 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2019)

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.
14/713,186 05/15/2015 Eleanor D. KAUFMAN 57591US02;67097-2090PUS2 5916
54549 7590 12/10/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
THOMAS, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELEANOR D. KAUFMAN and MATTHEW A. DEVORE
____________

Appeal 2019-004276
Application 14/713,186
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 13, and 23–37. See Appeal
Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). The Real Party in Interest is United Technologies Corporation.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004276
Application 14/713,186

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “relates generally to a gas turbine engine,” and
more particularly to “augmentation features for cooling” a part thereof. See
Spec ¶ 3.
Of the rejected claims, claims 1, 28, and 34 are independent. Appeal
Br. (Claims App’x). We reproduce claim 1, below, with emphasis added to
a particular limitation discussed in this Decision.
1. A component for a gas turbine engine, comprising:
a platform having an outer surface and an inner surface
that axially extend between a leading edge portion and a trailing
edge portion including a trailing edge, wherein said outer
surface and said inner surface are exterior surfaces of said
platform; and
a plurality of augmentation features disposed on said
outer surface of said trailing edge portion, each of said plurality
of augmentation features including a substantially straight first
portion and a substantially straight second portion that meets
said first portion at a meeting point, and each second portion is
nearer said trailing edge than its respective first portion.
Id. (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lafarge US 6,830,427 B2 Dec. 14, 2004
Bunker US 2006/0042255 A1 Mar. 2, 2006

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 13, and 23–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Lafarge and Bunker. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-004276
Application 14/713,186

3
OPINION

I. Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner finds that Lafarge discloses a
component for a gas turbine engine, citing in part Lafarge’s Figure 1. Final
Act. 3. We reproduce Lafarge’s Figure 1, below:

Figure 1 depicts a section view of a band of Lafarge’s high-pressure turbine
nozzle. Lafarge, 2:42–43. The Examiner finds that Lafarge discloses a
platform (Lafarge’s element 10) having an outer surface (element 18) and an
inner surface (element 12) that axially extend between a leading edge
portion (on the left side of the figure) and a trailing edge portion (element
16, on the right side of the figure). Final Act. 3.
To address the claimed “plurality of augmentation features,” the
Examiner finds that Lafarge discloses these features and submits an
annotated version of Lafarge’s Figure 4D (id. at 3–4) to illustrate this point,
which we reproduce, below:
Appeal 2019-004276
Application 14/713,186

4

Figure 4D is a view along IV-IV from Figure 1 and depicts “spoiler
projections.” Lafarge, 2:46–47. Lafarge describes elements 33 in Figure 4D
as curved ribs that “extend[] in a general direction that is parallel to the axis
of the turbine.” See id. at 4:14–16. In annotating Figure 4D, the Examiner
finds that Lafarge discloses augmentation features with “first portions” and
“second portions” that meet at a “meeting point.” Final Act. 3. The
Examiner acknowledges, however, that Lafarge does not teach that these
first and second portions are substantially straight, as called for in claim 1.
See id. at 4.
To address the missing limitation, the Examiner relies on Bunker. Id.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Bunker teaches a component with a
plurality of augmentation features and cites to Bunker’s Figure 2 (id.), which
we reproduce, below:
Appeal 2019-004276
Application 14/713,186

5

Figure 2 depicts a top view of Bunker’s outside surface of a combustor liner.
Bunker ¶ 9. Bunker describes element 40 as “segmented strips.” Id. ¶ 21.
The Examiner finds that segmented strips 40 are “augmentation features”
that have straight first and second portions and submits annotated, side-by-
side versions of Lafarge’s Figure 4D and Bunker’s Figure 2 (Ans. 20),
which we also reproduce, below:

According to the Examiner, the above Figures illustrate how Lafarge and
Bunker each disclose augmentation portions with first and second portions.
Appeal 2019-004276
Application 14/713,186

6
Id. at 19. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that only Bunker’s first
and second portions are straight. Id.
In modifying Lafarge’s first and second portions to be substantially
straight, the Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan would have done so “to
improve the cooling augmentation in particular convection cooling.” Final
Act. 4 (citing Bunker ¶ 21, ll. 8–10). The cited portion of Bunker discloses,
“The various embodiments improve cooling augmentation, and in particular
convection cooling, that may be obtained on industrial gas turbine
combustor liners and transition pieces.” Bunker ¶ 21.

II. Appellant’s Argument
Appellant contends that a skilled artisan would not have combined
Lafarge and Bunker as the Examiner has done. See Appeal Br. 5.
We agree.

III. Analysis
The issue is whether a skilled artisan would have modified Lafarge’s
curved ribs 33 to have two substantially straight portions in view of
Bunker’s teaching of chevron-shaped strips 40.
We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have made the
modification. The Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Lafarge’s curved
spoiler projections 33 to be straight like Bunker’s chevron-shaped strips
40—for improved convection cooling—is speculative. Final Act. 4.
In support of its proposed modification, the Examiner cites to
Bunker’s disclosure that “The various embodiments improve upon the
cooling augmentation, and in particular convection cooling, that may be
Appeal 2019-004276
Application 14/713,186

7
obtained on industrial gas turbine combustor liners and transition pieces.”
Bunker ¶ 21, ll. 8–10 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 4 (citing Bunker
¶ 21, ll. 8–10). Although Bunker discloses that its chevron-shaped strips 40
improve convection cooling, we are not persuaded that these features would
have improved convection cooling when compared to Lafarge’s curved
spoiler projections 33, which are already designed to increase convection
cooling.
Bunker discloses that the addition of segmented strips 40 improves
convection cooling when compared to a smooth surface or surfaces with
transverse/horizontal strips. To illustrate our point, we reproduce Bunker’s
Figure 10, below:

Appeal 2019-004276
Application 14/713,186

8
Figure 10 “is a graph illustrating the Reynolds number versus ratio of the
turbulated friction coefficient surface to the smooth surface friction
coefficient.” Bunker ¶ 17. Figure 10 “show[s] the advantages of using the
segmented strips.” Id. ¶ 32. Bunker discloses that
This figure indicates how the turbulation is greater at all of the
various Reynolds numbers or flow volumes (and especially the
high Reynolds numbers) for both the broken angled strips 40
and the v-shaped strips 40 as compared to the smooth surface,
which has no strips, and the transverse turbulators, which are
horizontal strips across the surface. . . . This figure indicates
how
Id. (italicized emphases added). Bunker similarly discloses that “the heat
transfer coefficient is greater at all of the various Reynolds numbers or flow
volumes (and especially the high Reynolds numbers) for both the broken
angled strips 40 and the v-shaped strips 40 as compared to the transverse
turbulators, which are horizontal strips across the surface.” Id. (describing
Figure 11, italicized emphasis added).
In a nutshell, Bunker’s disclosure of improved cooling is in
comparison to smooth surfaces or surfaces with horizontal strips.
Lafarge, on the other hand, has curved ribs 33. Importantly, Lafarge’s
curved ribs 33 exist to increase thermal convection. See, e.g., Lafarge 4:1–4
(“The spoiler projections enable the above-described thermal convention
[sic] phenomenon to be increased and thus enable the effectiveness of the
thermal barrier to be improved.”).
Although Bunker discloses that its v-shaped (or chevron-shaped)
strips 40 increase convection for improved cooling over smooth surfaces and
surfaces with horizontal strips, it does not disclose that its strips would
improve convection cooling over curved ribs, as used in Lafarge. As such,
Appeal 2019-004276
Application 14/713,186

9
Bunker’s teaching of improved convection cooling does not support the
Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed modification of Lafarge.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that a skilled artisan
would have modified Lafarge’s curved ribs for the reason expressed by the
Examiner. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 13,
and 23–37 as unpatentable over Lafarge and Bunker.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5,
11, 13,
23–37
103 Lafarge, Bunker 1, 2, 5, 11,
13, 23–37

REVERSED