San Quach et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 201913713371 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019) 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. 13/713,371 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation