Ex Parte Gregg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

13626511 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/626,511
11943 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE
09/25/2012
06/27/2018
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shawn J. Gregg
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.
63266US01 (1213-23147) 5582
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAWN J. GREGG and EDWIN OTERO
Appeal2017-007063
Application 13/626,511 1
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11-13, and 15 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fish et al.
(US 2008/0072598 Al, published March 27, 2008) (hereinafter "Fish") and
Pieussergues et al. (US 2009/0266080 Al, published October 29, 2009)
1 Shawn J. Gregg and Edwin Otero ("Appellants") identify United
Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (August
18, 2016) (hereinafter "Br."), at 3.
Appeal2017-007063
Application 13/626,511
(hereinafter "Pieussergues"). Final Office Action (April 19, 2016)
(hereinafter "Final Act."). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The claimed subject matter relates to "a combustor and nozzle guide
vane arrangement" for a gas turbine engine. Specification (September 25,
2012) (hereinafter "Spec."), i-f 1. The Examiner rejected the claims as
obvious over the prior art. For the reasons explained below, we agree with
the Examiner's determination of obviousness. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, and 13 are the independent claims. Claim 6 is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
6. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a multiple of fuel nozzles arranged asymmetrically about
a central longitudinal axis of the engine; and
a multiple of Nozzle Guide Vanes (NGVs) arranged
asymmetrically, said multiple of fuel nozzles define a 1 :2
relationship with respect to said multiple of NGVs over a 360
degree circumference to cause a turbine blade response to be
outside of a vibratory response to multiple engine order
crossmgs,
wherein said multiple of fuel nozzles define a first multiple
over a 180 degree arc and a second multiple over a second 180
degree arc, said first multiple different than said second multiple.
Br. 11, Claims Appendix.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Fish and Pieussergues "fails
to teach or suggest the features recited in claim 6."2 Br. 8. Appellants
2 Appellants argue claims 6, 8, 11, and 12 as a group. Br. 8-9. Appellants
further argue that claims 1, 5, 13, and 15 are patentable over the prior art for
the same reasons as presented in support of independent claim 6. Id. at 9.
2
Appeal2017-007063
Application 13/626,511
acknowledge that "Fish discloses an odd number of fuel nozzles." Id.
Appellants argue, however, that "neither Fish nor Pieussergues specifically
discloses using an asymmetric nozzle orientation ... in the relationship to
NGVs recited in claim 6." Id. Specifically, Appellants contend that "Fish
does not disclose NGV s, and Pieussergues provides no description of an
asymmetrical distribution of nozzles." Id.
Appellants' Specification describes that an asymmetric distribution of
elements around a 3 60-degree circumference includes a first number of
elements arranged over a first 180-degree arc and a second, different number
of elements arranged over a second 180-degree arc of the 3 60-degree
circumference. See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-137-39; see also Final Act. 2 (providing an
ordinary meaning of "asymmetric" as "having two sides or halves that are
not the same; not symmetrical"). Appellants' Specification discloses that
"any 180-degree arc may define the line of asymmetry." Id.
Fish teaches an asymmetric distribution of nozzles. Fish, Fig. 2. Fish
shows fuel injection system 20 for a gas turbine engine having ring-shaped
manifold assembly 22 with thirteen fuel nozzles 30 distributed around the
ring. Seven of the fuel nozzles are on the top 180-degree arc of the ring, and
six of the fuel nozzles are on the bottom 180-degree arc of the ring. Id.; see
also Final Act. 5 (annotated Figure 2 of Fish identifying a top 180-degree
arc and a bottom 180-degree arc). Fish does not disclose the number or
positioning of associated nozzle guide vanes (NGV s ).
Pieussergues teaches explicitly about the relationship between the
number fuel injectors and the number of nozzle vanes in a gas turbine
We select claim 6 as representative of the claims on appeal, and claims 1, 5,
8, 11-13, and 15 stand or fall with claim 6. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2017-007063
Application 13/626,511
engine. Specifically, Pieussergues teaches that an annular combustion
chamber of a turbomachine includes an annular row of fuel injectors and an
annular row of stationary vanes situated at the outlet of the chamber, where
the number of nozzle vanes is "equal to k times the number of injectors,
where k is an integer." Pieussergues i-f 6. More specifically, Pieussergues
states that "[ u ]nlike the prior art, the number of nozzle vanes situated at the
outlet from the chamber is determined as a function of the number of
injectors feeding said chamber and may be equal to the number of fuel
injectors or equal to twice the number of fuel injectors." Id. i-f 7; see also id.
,-r 26.
Pieussergues also teaches explicitly about the relationship between the
distribution of fuel injectors and the distribution of nozzle vanes.
Pieussergues states that "the vanes of the nozzle are all in the same position
relative to the fuel injectors." Id. i-f 7. Pieussergues teaches that positioning
the nozzle vanes all in the same position relative to the fuel injectors makes
it possible to expose all of the vanes to the same temperature conditions that
are imposed by the combustion of fuel in the chamber, and the nozzle vanes
are all subjected to substantially the same thermal stresses in operation,
lengthening the lifetime of the nozzle and increasing the performance of the
turbomachine. Id.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants'
invention would have been led by these explicit teachings in Pieussergues to
avoid thermal stresses and increase performance by using two nozzle vanes
at the outlet of the combustion chamber of Fish for each of Fish's fuel
injectors and to position the nozzle vanes all in the same position relative to
the fuel injectors. This modification to the gas turbine engine disclosed in
4
Appeal2017-007063
Application 13/626,511
Fish would result in an asymmetric distribution of 14 nozzle vanes in the top
180-degree arc of the annular ring of nozzle vanes, and 12 nozzle vanes in
the bottom 180-degree arc of the annular ring corresponding to the
asymmetric distribution of fuel injectors in Fish.
Appellants further argue that "[t]he applied art is completely silent
regarding a turbine blade response, much less that the response is outside of
a vibratory response to multiple engine order crossings as recited in claim
6." Br. 9 (Appellants asserting that "the focus of Fish is on heat shield or
stress relief features" and "Pieussergues is focused on the relationship of
dilution holes to nozzle guide vanes"). We agree with the Examiner that the
gas turbine engine of Fish, as modified by Pieussergues, would perform the
same function as recited in claim 6, i.e., "to cause a turbine blade response to
be outside of a vibratory response to multiple engine order crossings." Final
Act. 2 (Examiner finding that "since Fish [in view of] Pieussergues teaches
the same arrangement, the structure will perform the same claimed
function").
Specifically, Appellants' Specification describes that using "an
asymmetric stator vane configuration in front of [the] turbine blade row"
ensures the turbine blade response is outside of a vibratory response to
multiple engine order crossings. Spec. i-f 36. The Specification explains that
such an "asymmetric stator vane configuration reduces the blade forcing by
not allowing the dynamic forcing functions to achieve a steady state
condition." Id. Thus, "[i]n one revolution the blade will be subject to a
multiple of forces and frequencies that does not achieve the max amplitude
of steady state condition that is present in a symmetric NGV." Id. As noted
above, the gas turbine engine of Fish, as modified by Pieussergues, results in
5
Appeal2017-007063
Application 13/626,511
an asymmetric configuration ofNGVs, which, according to Appellants'
Specification, will ensure the turbine blade response is outside of a vibratory
response to multiple engine order crossings.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Fish and Pieussergues would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to
the features of the gas turbine engine of claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 6, and claims 1, 5, 8, 11-13, and 15 which fall with
claim 6, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11-13, and
15 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).
AFFIRMED
6