San Quach et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

13713371 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 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.
13/713,371 12/13/2012 San Quach 63954US01;
67097-2169PUS1
1715
54549 7590 09/03/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
RIVERA, CARLOS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2019 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 SAN QUACH and LANE THORNTON
____________________

Appeal 2019-000805
Application 13/713,371
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 5–8, 10, 17–19, and 21
in the present application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and
134(a).
We REVERSE.

1 The Appellant is the Applicant, United Technologies Corporation, which is
identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) at 1.
Appeal 2019-000805
Application 13/713,371

2
The claimed invention is directed to a gas turbine engine blade.
Abstract. Representative independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. An airfoil for a gas turbine engine comprising:
pressure and suction side walls spaced apart from one
another in a thickness direction and joined at leading and trailing
edges to provide an airfoil having an exterior surface with a
perimeter that extends in a radial direction to a tip having a
terminal end; and
a tip trench provided in the tip at an airfoil exterior and
wrapping at least portion of the airfoil from the pressure side wall
around the leading edge to the suction side wall, the tip trench
provided by a recess that has a curved cross-sectional shape
having a valley bounded by first and second lips, the first lip
extends in the radial direction beyond the second lip, wherein the
tip trench is provided about the perimeter of the tip such that the
tip trench circumscribes a portion of the terminal end, the portion
inboard from the second lip and adjoining the first lip, wherein
the terminal end extends in the radial direction beyond the second
lip, and the first lip is inboard from the second lip in the thickness
direction.
App. Br. 9, Claims App. (emphasis added).

REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 10, 17–19, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kwon (US 2012/0189427 A1, pub.
July 26, 2012) in view of Lee (US 5,660,523, iss. Aug. 26, 1997). Final Act.
5.

2 The Examiner’s rejection of all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2019-000805
Application 13/713,371

3
ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent claims 1, 17, and 21, as well as dependent
claim 5, the Examiner finds that Kwan discloses an airfoil for a gas turbine
engine as substantially claimed, including the recited tip trench with a first
lip that extends in the radial direction beyond a second lip. Final Act. 5–6,
referring to annotated Figure 3B of Kwon; see also Ans. 2.
The Examiner concedes that Kwon does not disclose that the recess of
the alleged trench has a curved cross-sectional shape, but finds that “Lee
teaches a similar structure (see fig. 3) with a recess 50 that can be
rectangular (fig. 5) (i.e., like Kwon) OR curved cross-sectional shape (fig.
3).” Final Act. 6, citing Lee, col. 4, ll. 27–36 (“As seen in FIG. 3, the outer
groove 50 can be semi-circular in cross-section.”).
Based on the above findings with respect to Kwon and Lee, the
Examiner concludes that
It would have been an obvious design choice to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to design the
recess having a curved cross-sectional shape in Kwon, as
suggested by Kwon and Lee, since it has been held that a
rationale where a simple substitution of one known element
(i.e., recess with a rectangular cross-sectional shape) for another
(i.e., recess with a curved cross-sectional shape) to obtain
predictable results (i.e., cooling passages to a tip trench)
support a conclusion of obviousness.
Final Act. 6–7, citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–21
(2007).
The Appellant argues that “Kwon does not disclose ‘a tip trench
provided in the tip at an airfoil exterior.’ The portion of Kwon’s airfoil cited
by the Examiner as ‘a tip trench’ is within a cooling passage internal [to] the
airfoil.” App. Br. 6. We agree with the Appellant.
Appeal 2019-000805
Application 13/713,371

4
Kwon merely discloses a gas turbine engine having a plurality of
cooling openings 64 positioned between its inner part 66 and its outer part
68. Kwon ¶ 23; Figs. 2, 3B; see also id. at Fig. 6B. The Examiner’s
rejection is premised on the cross sectional view of Figure 3B of Kwon
taken across cooling openings 64, and the finding that the side walls of the
cooling openings form a recess, and thus, a trench. This finding is not
supportable by the record, and we find that the series of cooling openings 64
positioned between the inner part 66 and the outer part 68 of Kwon cannot
reasonably be considered a trench as that term would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in view of the Specification, and/or its plain and ordinary
meaning. The Examiner’s reasoning as articulated in the Final Office
Action relies on substituting the shape of the recess of the alleged trench of
Kwon with the curved shape of the grooves 50 of Lee based on design
choice. Final Act. 6–7. However, this articulation based on substitution is
not rational considering that Kwon does not have a trench.
In an apparent shift in position, the Examiner explains in the Answer
that “the combination of Kwon and Lee, as rejected, would require the
pockets of Kwon to be continuous (see page 7 of Final Rejection), therefore,
the combination results in a tip trench at an airfoil exterior analogous to the
instant application (see tip trench 50 in fig. 3 of Lee).” Ans. 3 (emphasis
added). However, we find persuasive, the Appellant’s argument that “a
skilled person would not modify Kwon with Lee in the way the Examiner
suggests” because “[i]f the pockets 64 were extended to wrap continuously
around the airfoil as the Examiner suggests, the joint would be compromised
and it is not clear whether the inner part 66 would still be adequately secured
to the outer part 68.” App. Br. 7.
Appeal 2019-000805
Application 13/713,371

5
The Examiner responds that “Lee clearly teaches how the
modification of wrapping a tip trench from a pressure side to a suction side
would work and explicitly teaches how adequately secure the outer part and
the inner part (at least in figs. 2-3),” and that “Kwon also gives guidance on
different forms of securing the outer part and the inner part with a trench 82
(see figs. 4 and 5B of Kwon).” Ans. 5. However, the Examiner has not
adequately explained how the cooling openings 64 of Kwon, which lacks a
trench, should be modified to result in the device claimed, except to modify
the cooling openings “to be continuous,” this reasoning being problematic
for the reasons noted above. The Examiner’s general assertions pertaining
to the disclosures of Lee and Kwon are inadequate to support a rejection.
Therefore, in view of the above, we reverse this rejection as to claims
1, 5, 17, and 21. As to dependent claims 6–8, 10, 18, and 19, the Appellant
relies on their dependency for patentability. App. Br. 8. We reverse the
rejection as to these dependent claims as well. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under
section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.”).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED.

REVERSED