Ex Parte Bunker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2018

12604460 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/604,460 10/23/2009
6147 7590 11/28/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald Scott Bunker
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
238379-1 8582
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2018 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD SCOTT BUNKER
Appeal2018-002524
Application 12/604,460 1
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-21 and 23-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). A decision was rendered in a prior appeal, 2014-000600, reversing the
Examiner's rejection.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is General Electric
Company. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002524
Application 12/604,460
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a structure and method for improving film
cooling using a shallow trench with holes oriented along a length of trench.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A turbine airfoil comprising:
at least one trench, each trench comprising a plurality of
film holes disposed therein and located along the lengthwise
direction of the corresponding trench and angled through a
corresponding airfoil substrate substantially in the lengthwise
direction of the corresponding trench, wherein the depth of the
trench is less than an average throat diameter of the
corresponding film cooling holes, wherein each film hole has a
central axis substantially parallel to a plurality of side walls of
the corresponding trench;
a bond layer bonded to a surface of the corresponding
airfoil substrate; and
an overlying thermal barrier coating attached to the
opposite side of the bond layer, wherein the trench penetrates the
bond layer and the overlying thermal barrier coating, and further
wherein each film hole penetrates the airfoil substrate.
REJECTION
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lee (US 5,458,461, issued Oct. 17,
1995), in view of Zhang (Numerical investigation on the effect of different
transverse trench configuration on film cooling effectiveness (Apr. 2008)),
and Bunker (US 6,234,755 Bl, issued May 22, 2001). Final Act. 4.
OPINION
The claims are argued as a group with claim 1 being representative
under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(c)(l)(iv). Appellant's first contention of error in the
Examiner's rejection is: "Lee does not teach or suggest anything akin to 'at
2
Appeal2018-002524
Application 12/604,460
least one trench, each trench comprising a plurality of film holes ... wherein
each film hole has a central axis substantially parallel to a plurality of side
walls of the corresponding trench ... '." App. Br. 9. It is not clear to us why
Appellant makes this assertion, which is not further developed in the Brief.
We understand a line such as the "central axis" of a hole to be parallel to a
plane, such as those defined by a trench's "side walls," when that line never
intersects those planes in three-dimensional space. 2 Although we are
speculating somewhat about what Appellant intended to argue because
Appellant's argument in this regard is not fully developed, it appears that
Appellant believes the substantially parallel condition is not satisfied in Lee
because of the angle Din Figure 4.
As the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 3--4), the embodiment
Appellant's Specification describes as having a "substantially parallel"
relationship between the central axis of the holes and the trench side walls
(see Spec. paras. 19-21, 26) also depicts a similar angle (see Fig. 7). The
most reasonable way to consider the question of parallelism in light of the
Specification is in three-dimensional space. As the Examiner correctly
points out (Ans. 3--4), from Figure 3 of Lee, it can clearly be seen that, when
considered in three-dimensional space, the central axis of holes 48 is
substantially parallel to sidewalls 46c, 46d. See Lee, col. 5, 11. 14--29.
Appellant's next argument is as follows:
as is commonly known in the art, these two phenomena[, slot
cooling and trench cooling,] are fundamentally different and one
cannot [ sic be] equated with or approximated to another . . .
traditionally, the geometric dimensions and their interrelations
are different from depth of a 'cooling slot', as used in 'slot
2 See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry) (last accessed
Nov. 20, 2018).
3
Appeal2018-002524
Application 12/604,460
cooling' is different from the geometric dimensions and their
interrelations of a 'trench' as used in 'trench cooling'.
App. Br. 10. This argument is again not entirely clear. Appellant seems to be
arguing that there exists a distinction between slot cooling as described by
Lee and trench cooling as recited in Appellant's claims. It is axiomatic that it
is not necessary for the prior art to use identical language to describe
structures or acts disclosed therein in order to consider claim limitations
satisfied by those structures or acts. In re Neugebauer, 330 F. 2d 353, 358 n.
4 ( CCP A 1964) ("In the construction of words, not the mere words, but the
thing and the meaning, are to be inquired after."). If there is something other
than a purely linguistic distinction between a slot and a trench in this art,
Appellant is in the best position to furnish evidence or to provide at least
some technical explanation of that distinction. Neither has been done for the
purpose of the present appeal. We agree with the Examiner that when the
term trench is considered in light of the Specification, which depicts a
structure similar in form and function to that of Lee, Lee's slot 46 is
reasonably regarded as a "trench" and would be regarded by the skilled
artisan as relevant to both the claimed subject matter and the teachings of
Zhang. Ans. 5-6.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of any error in the
Examiner's action.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection is affirmed.
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)(l )(iv).
4
Appeal2018-002524
Application 12/604,460
AFFIRMED
5