United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 19, 2020

15343988 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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. 15/343,988 11/04/2016 Jonathan Jeffery Eastwood 95128US01-U(16-352) 9402 52237 7590 10/19/2020 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. 900 Chapel St., Suite 1201 New Haven, CT 06510 EXAMINER SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/19/2020 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATHAN JEFFERY EASTWOOD, MONICA PACHECO-TOUGAS, and KEVIN ZACCHERA Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, 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 1–27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies Corporation, formerly United Technologies Corporation. Suppl. Appeal Br. 1–2, filed Apr. 20, 2020. Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to “a gas turbine engine and, more particularly, to a combustor section therefor.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A liner panel for use in a combustor of a gas turbine engine, the liner panel comprising: a stud free zone downstream of a combustor swirler, wherein the stud free zone is on a hot side of the liner panel. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Cunha US 2015/0362192 A1 Dec. 17, 2015 REJECTION Claims 1–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Cunha. OPINION Claims 1, 3, 4, 22, 23, and 26 The Examiner finds that Cunha anticipates the subject matter of claim 1, with particular reference to an annotated version of Cunha’s Figure 3, reproduced below (with an additional annotation by the Board as discussed below), to specifically identify the “forward stud free zone” and the “aft stud free zone.” Final Act. 2–3. Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 3 Cunha’s Figure 3 “is an expanded partial perspective longitudinal schematic view of a combustor section” of a gas turbine engine. Cunha ¶ 27. The Examiner’s annotations include, in pertinent part, trapezoids to identify the stud free zones. As the Examiner explains, “the shape of the stud free zone can be any shape that does not comprise studs, and the stud free zone encompasses both the liner panel 72[A] and the shell 68 surrounding the panel.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner also explains that the stud free zones are “shown overlaid above the shell to show that studs are not present in the zone.” Id. Appellant argues that the stud free zones identified by the Examiner are located on the outer support shell, not on the liner panel as claim 1 recites. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant emphasizes that claim 1 recites that “the stud free zone is on a hot side of the liner panel.” Id. at 10 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also asserts that the trapezoidal shapes that the Examiner identifies as the stud free zones “are not downstream of a combustor swirler” as recited in claim 1. Id. Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 4 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As the Examiner explains, both in the Final Action and in the Answer, the Examiner draws the trapezoid-shaped stud free zone overlying outer shell 68 in Cunha’s Figure 3 because that is where the studs can be seen extending from forward and aft heat shields (liner panels) 72A, 72B and through outer shell 68. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. The Examiner considers the stud free zone to encompass both the indicated portion of outer shell 68 and the trapezoid-shaped portions of the hot sides of forward and aft heat shields 72A, 72B. In other words, Cunha’s liner panels (forward and aft heat shields 72A, 72B) have trapezoid-shaped stud free zones on their hot sides aligned with and beneath the trapezoid-shaped stud free zone identified in the Examiner’s annotated version of Cunha’s Figure 3. We discern no error in the Examiner’s finding in this regard. As for the stud free zones being downstream of the combustion swirler, the Examiner identifies Cunha’s fuel nozzle pre-swirlers 90 as the swirler. Final Act. 4. It is clear from a review of Cunha’s Figures 2 and 32 that the stud free zones identified by the Examiner are downstream of Cunha’s fuel nozzle pre-swirlers 90. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Cunha. Appellant addresses claims 3, 4, 22, 23, and 26 under separate headings, but relies on essentially the same arguments presented for claim 1 2 Cunha’s fuel nozzle pre-swirlers 90 are shown and identified in Figure 2 and are illustrated in Figure 3, but they are not specifically numbered or identified in Figure 3. We added an annotation to the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 3 of Cunha to identify where fuel nozzle pre-swirlers 90 are shown. Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 5 in contesting the rejection of these claims. See Appeal Br. 10–11, 13–14. For the reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1, Appellant’s arguments likewise fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 3, 4, 22, 23, and 26. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 22, 23, and 26 as anticipated by Cunha. Claims 2, 7, 10–16, and 24 Claims 2, 7, 10–16, and 24 recite a trapezoidal stud free zone. Appeal Br. 16–20 (Claims App.). The Examiner identifies such a stud free zone by drawing a trapezoid on the annotated Figure 3 of Cunha. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that “the Examiner simply arbitrarily draws a trapezoidal shape.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner points out, and we agree, that “[t]he [E]xaminer has identified a stud free zone in Cunha . . . that comprises a trapezoidal shape defined in the same manner as claimed and disclosed by [A]ppellant.” Ans. 3; compare Appellant’s Fig. 7, with Final Act. 3 (Examiner’s annotated Figure 3 of Cunha). The trapezoidal stud free zone that the Examiner identifies is no more arbitrarily defined than the trapezoidal stud free zone that Appellant illustrates in Figure 7 of the present application. Claim 24 depends from claim 11 and further recites that “the stud free zone comprises a multiple of film cooling holes.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). The Examiner reads the claimed film cooling holes on Cunha’s film cooling holes 108, which the Examiner finds “extend over the extent of panel 72A, such that there are film cooling holes in the forward stud free zone.” Final Act. 6. Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 6 Appellant contends that “the Examiner only references the support shell which does not include film cooling holes but impingement holes.” Appeal Br. 14. This argument, which essentially reiterates the unpersuasive argument presented for claim 1, is unavailing because it is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection, which explicitly references Cunha’s forward heat shield 72A and reads the claimed film cooling holes on film cooling holes 108 therein, as discussed above. For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 2, or of claims 7, 10–16, and 24, for which Appellant simply relies essentially on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 2. See Appeal Br. 11–12, 14. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 7, 10–16, and 24 as anticipated by Cunha. Claim 5 The Examiner finds that Cunha’s aft stud free zone, as identified by the Examiner in the annotated Figure 3 of Cunha, is downstream of the forward liner panel stud free zone. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that “the Examiner arbitrarily draws two trapezoidal shapes.” Appeal Br. 11. This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2. Further, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 5, which does not specify the shape of either of the stud free zones. Appellant additionally argues that “the aft stud free zone as identified by the Examiner is downstream of the diffusion passages.” Appeal Br. 11. This argument is unavailing because claim 5 does not recite diffusion passages, much less specify any particular spatial relationship between the aft stud free zone and any such diffusion passages. Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 7 For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 5 as anticipated by Cunha, which we, thus, sustain. Claim 6 The Examiner finds that Cunha’s liner panel comprises at least one major diffusion aperture and that the aft stud free zone is downstream of the forward liner panel stud free zone, as called for in claim 6. Final Act. 3 (referring to diffusion apertures identified in the annotated Figure 3 of Cunha). Appellant argues that “the Examiner just generically draws the zones in the perspective view such that the aft zone identified by the Examiner is not necessarily downstream of the forward zone.” Appeal Br. 11. This argument appears to be nothing more than a re-packaging of the unpersuasive argument, presented for claim 1, regarding the Examiner’s placement of the trapezoidal shape representing the stud free zone. It is clear from a review of Figures 1–3 of Cunha that the “aft stud free zone” identified by the Examiner in the annotated Figure 3 of Cunha is downstream of the “forward stud free zone” identified by the Examiner in the annotated Figure 3 of Cunha. For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 6 as anticipated by Cunha, which we, thus, sustain. Claim 8 The Examiner finds that Cunha’s forward “stud free zone is located toward an aft edge of the forward liner panel” as called for in claim 8. Final Act. 4 (explaining that “toward is a relative term not defined by [Appellant]”). Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 8 Appellant argues that the stud free zone identified by the Examiner in the annotated version of Figure 3 of Cunha “is located in a center portion of the forward liner panel.” Appeal Br. 11. In response, the Examiner explains that “[A]ppellant has used the relative term ‘toward’ to define the location of the stud free zone relative to the aft edge, such that the stud free zone would be toward the aft edge relative to components of the combustor further from the aft edge than the stud free zone.” Ans. 4. Claim 8 does not specify with respect to what the stud free zone is located toward an aft edge of the forward liner panel and, in particular, does not recite that the stud free zone is closer to the aft edge of the forward liner panel than it is to the forward edge of the forward liner panel, for example. Given the breadth of claim 8 in this regard, the Examiner’s construction of “toward” in claim 8 is not unreasonable. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 as anticipated by Cunha. Claims 9 and 21 Claim 9 recites a stud free zone defined by “a truncated triangle with a truncated apex located adjacent to the combustor swirler.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Claim 21 contains a similar recitation. Id. at 20. The Examiner finds that Cunha’s “stud free zone is defined by a truncated triangle with a truncated apex located at the combustor swirler.” Final Act. 4 (referencing the shorter portion of the trapezoid in the annotated Figure 3 on page 3 of Final Action); see also id. at 6 (making a similar finding in addressing claim 21). Appellant contends that “the Examiner arbitrarily defines the zone in the middle of the support shell which is not adjacent to the combustor Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 9 swirler.” Appeal Br. 12; see id. at 13 (making a similar argument for claim 21). In response, the Examiner explains that “adjacent, as read in light of [F]igure 7 of the instant application, would mean that the truncated apex of the stud free zone is closer to the combustor swirler than any other portions of the stud free zone.” Ans. 4. Appellant’s Specification discloses that “stud free zone 200 is defined by a truncated triangle with a truncated apex 201 located at the combustor swirler 90.” Spec. ¶ 59. Appellant illustrates truncated apex 201 in Figure 7, which is reproduced below. “Figure 7 is a perspective view of a liner panel array” and illustrates trapezoid-shaped stud free zones 200. Spec. ¶ 33. The shorter of the parallel sides of the trapezoids are spaced significantly from the forward edge of forward liner panels 72A, 74A and, thus, are spaced downstream from combustor swirler 90. Figure 7 includes dotted lines projecting the Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 10 angled, non-parallel sides of the trapezoid up beyond the forward end of stud free zone 200 toward combustor swirler 90 to define truncated apex 201. In other words, although the trapezoid defining stud free zone 200 is spaced from combustor swirler 90, Appellant defines a projected truncated apex, which is not in fact part of stud free zone 200,3 at combustor swirler 90. The trapezoidal forward stud free zone identified by the Examiner in the annotated version of Figure 3 of Cunha is similarly spaced downstream of Cunha’ combustor swirler (fuel nozzle pre-swirlers 90). Further, similar to Appellant’s Figure 7, lines could be projected from the angled, non- parallel sides of the trapezoid of the forward stud free zone of Cunha identified by the Examiner toward Cunha’s fuel nozzle pre-swirlers 90 to define a projected truncated apex in the vicinity of (i.e., adjacent to) the combustor swirler. Thus, Appellant’s definition of the stud free zone as a truncated triangle or trapezoidal shaped zone with a truncated apex located adjacent to the combustor swirler in claims 9 and 21 does not distinguish the claimed subject matter from Cunha. For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 9 and 21 as anticipated by Cunha, which we, thus, sustain. Claim 27 Appellant contends that claim 27’s recitation of an axis of each of the studs “obviates the Examiner’s argument that the support shell identified zone has anything whatsoever to do with the [claimed] liner panel.” Appeal Br. 14–15. 3 Note the stud located between stud free zone 200 and truncated apex 201 located at combustor swirler 90 in Appellant’s Figure 7. Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 11 The Examiner reiterates that “the stud free zone encompasses both the liner panel (72[A]) and the shell (68), wherein the liner panel includes a hot side fac[ing] the combustion chamber (66)” and that “[t]he annotation of the stud free zone in the annotated figure of the rejection is shown overlaid above the shell of Cunha to show that the stud free zone does not comprise any studs.” Ans. 5. Appellant does not cogently explain, and it is not apparent, how claim 27’s recitation of an axis of each of the studs refutes the Examiner’s position in this regard. The Examiner does not find that Cunha’s support shell 68 is a liner panel, nor does the Examiner’s rejection require such a finding. Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 27 as anticipated by Cunha, which we, thus, sustain. Claims 17 and 25 The Examiner finds that Cunha teaches the method of claim 17. Final Act. 5 (referencing the annotated Figure 3 of Cunha on page 3 of the Final Action). In particular, the Examiner finds that Cunha’s stud free zone comprises multiple film cooling holes to facilitate distribution such that the studs do not prevent location of any of the film cooling holes. Id. Claim 25, which depends from claim 1, similarly recites that the stud free zone comprises film cooling holes to facilitate distribution such that none of the studs prevents location of any of the film cooling holes. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). The Examiner makes findings similar to those made regarding claim 17 in addressing claim 25. Final Act. 7. Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s arbitrary determination of the zones does not support that these studs are then positioned to not prevent location of any of the multiple of film cooling holes.” Appeal Br. 12; see id. Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 12 at 14 (presenting a similar argument for claim 25). This argument appears to simply re-hash the arguments presented for claim 1, which are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above and, likewise, are unpersuasive with respect to claims 17 and 25. The Examiner explains that Cunha’s “film cooling holes (108) in the stud free zone in the annotated figure are not blocked by studs, which are not present in the stud free zone.” Ans. 4. Appellant does not refute the Examiner’s explanation or present any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to support Appellant’s position that this arrangement does not satisfy the language of claim 17 or claim 25 regarding the studs not preventing location of any of the film cooling holes. For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 17 and 25 as anticipated by Cunha, which we, thus, sustain. Claim 18 The Examiner finds that Cunha’s liner panel comprises a dilution passage (diffusion apertures identified in the annotated version of Figure 3 of Cunha) within an aft stud free zone as called for in claim 18. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that, “[e]ven in the Examiner’s annotation, the zone does not contain a dilution passage.” Appeal Br. 13. Figure 3 of Cunha does not explicitly show the portion of aft heat shield 72B corresponding to the trapezoidal stud free zone identified by the Examiner in the annotated Figure 3 (i.e., the portion of aft heat shield 72B underlying the trapezoid drawn by the Examiner on support shell 68). Persons having ordinary skill in the art, however, would have inferred from the circumferentially extending pattern of diffusion apertures shown in aft heat shield 72B in Cunha’s Figure 3 that this pattern extends around the Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 13 entire circumference of the heat shield. The pattern of diffusion apertures shown in aft heat shield 72B in Cunha’s Figure 3, therefore, conveys that at least one diffusion aperture will be located within the identified aft stud free zone. Thus, Cunha’s Figure 3 supports the Examiner’s finding that Cunha anticipates the subject matter of claim 18 by a preponderance of evidence. Accordingly, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 18 as anticipated by Cunha, which we, thus, sustain. Claim 19 In contesting the rejection of claim 19, which depends from claim 17, Appellant simply repeats the assertion that the Examiner’s drawing of a trapezoidal shape is arbitrary. Appeal Br. 13. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2, this line of argument is not persuasive. Accordingly, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 19 as anticipated by Cunha, which we, thus, sustain. Claim 20 In contesting the rejection of claim 20, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s purportedly arbitrary location of the stud free zone provides no support for the stud free zone being a truncated triangle that has a truncated apex located adjacent to the combustor swirler. Appeal Br. 13. As discussed above, this argument fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 9, which contains a similar recitation, and, likewise, fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 20. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 as anticipated by Cunha. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–27 is AFFIRMED. Appeal 2020-001554 Application 15/343,988 14 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–27 102(a)(1) Cunha 1–27 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