UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 8, 2020

2020002804 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2020)

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.
15/110,904 07/11/2016 James B. Downey JR. 67097-2796PUS1;
74473US02
3941
54549 7590 12/08/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2020 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 JAMES B. DOWNEY JR., BRENDA ZHANG,
STEVEN G. LEMIEUX, ELEANOR D. KAUFMAN, TAKAO FUKUDA,
and DANIEL C. NADEAU
Appeal 2020-002804
Application 15/110,904
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s July 9, 2019 Final Action rejecting claims 1 and 6–18. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002804
Application 15/110,904

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a trailing-edge cooling pedestal
configuration for a gas turbine engine airfoil. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An airfoil for a gas turbine engine comprising:
pressure and suction surfaces provided by pressure and
suction walls extending in a radial direction from a platform to
an airfoil tip and joined at a leading edge and a trailing edge;
a cooling passage arranged between the pressure and
suction walls and extending to the trailing edge, the cooling
passage terminating in a trailing edge exit arranged in the trailing
edge;
first, second, and third rows of pedestals each extending in
a radial direction and spaced from one another in a chord-wise
direction, the first row of pedestals joining the pressure and
suction walls, the first row of pedestals arranged closest to the
trailing edge are interiorly spaced from the trailing edge thereby
leaving the trailing edge exit unobstructed; and
each of the first, second, and third rows of pedestals
includes a first, second, third, and fourth group of pedestals, the
first group is arranged near the airfoil tip, and the fourth group is
arranged near the platform, wherein pedestals in the first and
third groups have the same cross-sectional area, and the pedestals
in the fourth group have a larger cross-sectional area than the
pedestals in the first and third groups.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Yamarik US 4,278,400 July 14, 1981
Sylvestro US 5,368,441 Nov. 29, 1994
Döpper US 6,382,920 B1 May 7, 2002
Moore US 6,824,352 B1 Nov. 30, 2004
Cunha US 7,014,424 B2 Mar. 21, 2006
Cherolis US 7,175,386 B2 Feb. 13, 2007
Akiyama EP 1 849 960 A2 Oct. 31, 2007

Appeal 2020-002804
Application 15/110,904

3
REJECTIONS2
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 6, 17, 18 103 Akiyama, Yamarik,
Moore
7–9 103 Akiyama, Yamarik,
Moore, Cherolis
10, 12–14 103 Akiyama, Yamarik,
Moore, Cunha
11 103 Akiyama, Yamarik,
Moore, Sylvestro
15, 16 103 Akiyama, Yamarik,
Moore, Döpper
OPINION
Claims 1, 6, and 17–18: Rejected as
Unpatentable over Akiyama, Yamarik, and Moore
Appellant argues the claims subject to this rejection as a group.
Appeal Br. 4–5. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and
decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Akiyama teaches the limitations of claim 1
except for the pedestals in the fourth group having a larger cross-sectional
area than the pedestals in the first and third groups. Final Act. 4. For this
limitation, the Examiner relies on Yamarik, which teaches, according to the
Examiner,
a gas turbine engine blade having a trailing edge passage with
multiple rows of pedestals, and wherein pedestals (68, 70) in a
radially innermost region are sized (i.e., as the largest) to

2 The Examiner has apparently withdrawn an indefiniteness rejection of
claim 19, which was canceled by Amendment after Final Rejection. See
Sept. 17, 2019 Advisory Act.; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-002804
Application 15/110,904

4
provide the most obstruction in order to prevent wasteful
discharge of cooling fluid at the platform section where heat
loads are relatively low.
Id. at 5 (citing Yamarik, 4:22–25); see also Yamarik, unnumbered Fig. The
Examiner further finds that “Moore discloses that, in a gas turbine engine
vane, the number of pedestals per row in a trailing edge cooling passage is
chosen with regards to achieving desired cooling requirements (see
col.3:11.3–5), thereby recognizing number of pedestals per row as a result-
effective variable.” Id. The Examiner also finds that Akiyama teaches that
“the aim of the invention of specifying relative flow resistances can be
achieved by varying both the sizes and density (note: density of pin fins is
dictated by size, number, and spacing there between) of pin fins 16.” Id.
(citing Akiyama ¶¶ 41–45). The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the airfoil of
Akiyama to include making the radially inner most pedestals (i.e., the
identified ‘fourth group’) to have the largest size, as disclosed by Yamarik,
for the purpose of preventing wasteful discharge of cooling fluid at the
platform section where heat loads are relatively low.” Id.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unpersuasive of Examiner error,
essentially for those reasons expressed in the Final Action and Answer. We
add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues that the proposed combination “does not meet the
claims.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant notes that claim 1 requires the first group
of pedestals near the airfoil tip to be smaller than the fourth group of
pedestals near the platform, and the first group near the tip be the same size
as the third group, whereas, in Akiyama, the larger pedestals are “at the
Appeal 2020-002804
Application 15/110,904

5
radially inner and outer areas, and small pins in the middle.” Id. (citing
Akiyama ¶ 41. The Examiner responds that the pedestals in region 85
depicted in Akiyama Figure 8 correspond to the claimed first and third
groups of pedestals, the pedestals in region 87 correspond to the claimed,
second group of pedestals, and the pedestals in region 86 (the region closest
to the platform) correspond to the claimed fourth group. Ans. 4. The
Examiner also provides an annotated version of Akiyama Figure 8,
reproduced below, to illustrate this correspondence:

Akiyama Figure 8, with the Examiner’s annotations, illustrates the
Examiner’s proposed correspondence between Akiyama’s pedestals and the
claimed pedestal sizes. Id. The Examiner further explains that as a result of
the proposed modification of Akiyama with Yamarik, Akiyama’s fourth
group of pedestals would “have the largest size”; that is:
[T]he size of pedestals/pins in Akiyama area 86 is made to be
the largest, while the sizes of Akiyama pedestals/pins in
Akiyama areas 85 and 87 are unchanged, thereby preserving
Appeal 2020-002804
Application 15/110,904

6
Akiyama’s preference for the pedestal/pins in area 87 to be the
smallest and, thus provide the lowest passage resistance.
Id. at 5.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant first argues that the Examiner’s
annotated Figure 8 “illustrates that Akiyama does not disclose the claimed
pedestal arrangements” because it shows that the pedestals in the fourth
group are the same size as the pedestals in the first and third groups. Reply
Br. 2. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner is relying on
the combination of Akiyama and Yamarik, not on Akiyama alone, to teach
the claimed pedestal arrangement. Ans. 5; see In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.”).
Appellant next argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have modified Akiyama in view of Yamarik as the Examiner proposes
because Akiyama teaches having small pins in the middle and large pins at
the radially inner and outer areas, and “[o]ne would not modify the
arrangement of Akiyama to make the fourth group larger and the first and
third groups smaller, as such a modification would affect the passage
resistance of cooling air of Akiyama.” Reply Br. 2. But, as the Examiner
points out (Ans. 5), the size of the pedestal/pins in regions 85 and 87 of
Akiyama’s airfoil would not change as a result of the proposed modification,
“thereby preserving Akiyama’s preference for the pedestals/pins in area 87
to be the smallest and, thus provide the lowest passage resistance.” Ans. 5.
We also credit the Examiner’s unrebutted finding that it was known in the
art that flow resistance at the trailing edge of an airfoil is affected by the size
Appeal 2020-002804
Application 15/110,904

7
of the pedestals, as well as the number of pedestals and the spacing between
them, such that pedestal size, number, and spacing are result-effective
variables. Final Act. 5 (citing Moore, 3:3–5; Akiyama ¶¶ 41–45).
Accordingly, it would have required only an exercise of ordinary skill to
achieve any desired air-flow resistance by varying these three variables. See
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (holding that “where the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive
to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”).
Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over
Akiyama, Yamarik, and Moore.
Claim 11: Rejected as Unpatentable over
Akiyama, Yamarik, Moore, and Sylvestro
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites “wherein a
trailing edge exit has an uncoated width in a thickness direction, which is
perpendicular to the chord-wise direction, of 0.020 inch (0.51 mm).” Appeal
Br. 8 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Sylvestro to establish that the
trailing edge exit width “contributes to defining the cooling passage” and
thus is a result-effective variable. Final Act. 12 (citing Sylvestro, 6:64–68,
7:1–9). In the Answer, the Examiner further finds that it was known in the
art to apply multiple coatings to turbine-engine blades. Ans. 8 (citing US
8,247,085 to Bewlay et al., 4:51–58, Fig. 5). The Examiner determines that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the
airfoil of Akiyama in view of Yamarik and Moore to include specifying the
width as claimed in order to achieve a desired heat transfer effect.” Id.
Appeal 2020-002804
Application 15/110,904

8
Appellant responds that “the Examiner does not point to any range or
value [for trailing-edge width] in the reference.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant
cites E.I duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) for the proposition that a reference must disclose a range or value
of a variable to establish the variable as result-effective. Reply Br. 2–3
(citing duPont, 904 F.3d at 1006). We disagree. The Examiner is not basing
the prima facie case of unpatentability on a finding that the claimed
uncoated trailing-edge-width range overlaps a prior-art uncoated trailing-
edge-width range, but rather on the finding that uncoated trailing-edge width
is a result effective variable. Final Act. 12. As stated in duPont, “a
recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is
sufficient to find the variable result-effective.” duPont, 904 F.3d at 1006.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that trailing edge width
affects the heat-transfer properties of the turbine blade. Further, the
uncoated width necessarily affects the final coated trailing edge width.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Akiyama, Yamarik, Moore, and
Sylvestro, and we therefore sustain the rejection.
Remaining Rejections
Appellant relies on arguments made in connection with claim 1,
which, as discussed above, we found unpersuasive, to support the
patentability of claims 7–10 and 12–16. Appeal Br. 5–6. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7–10 and 12–16.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
More specifically,
Appeal 2020-002804
Application 15/110,904

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 17, 18 103 Akiyama,
Yamarik, Moore
1, 6, 17, 18
7–9 103 Akiyama,
Yamarik, Moore,
Cherolis
7–9
10, 12–14 103 Akiyama,
Yamarik, Moore,
Cunha
10, 12–14
11 103 Akiyama,
Yamarik,
Moore, Sylvestro
11
15, 16 103 Akiyama,
Yamarik, Moore,
Döpper
15, 16
Overall
Outcome
1, 6–18

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED