BOARD OF REGENTS, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2021

2021001112 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2021)

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.
15/126,823 09/16/2016 Eric M. Braun 292003-1140 2802
24504 7590 08/26/2021
THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP
3200 WINDY HILL ROAD, SE
SUITE 1600E
ATLANTA, GA 30339
EXAMINER
KIM, TAE JUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3799
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2021 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):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
ozzie.liggins@tkhr.com
uspatents@tkhr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ERIC M. BRAUN and FRANK K. LU
__________

Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–17. See Final Act.
1. Claims 2–4, 8, and 18–20 have been canceled, and claim 12 has been
withdrawn from further consideration. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM and designate our affirmance of the rejections of claims
1, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as NEW GROUNDS OF
REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Board of
Regents, The University of Texas System. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a power generation system that has a pulse
detonation engine and a linear power generator. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A power generation system comprising:
a pulse detonation engine configured to detonate fuel and
oxidizer mixtures, the pulse detonation engine including a
combustion chamber having a fuel inlet, an oxidizer inlet, and an
ignition source;
a linear power generator configured to generate power
responsive to detonations that occur within the combustion
chamber of the pulse detonation engine, the linear power
generator including a working chamber and a drive piston
disposed within the working chamber, the drive piston being
configured to linearly travel along a length of the working
chamber;
a divergent nozzle that links the combustion chamber of
the pulse detonation engine with the working chamber of the
linear power generator and expands exhaust gas expelled from
the combustion chamber, wherein the divergent nozzle increases
the thermodynamic efficiency of the system; and
an exhaust port provided within the divergent nozzle
configured to enable exhaust gases to exit the working chamber
of the linear power generator.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bodine US 2,543,758 Mar. 6, 1951
Valaev US 3,954,380 May 4, 1976
Adams US 4,759,318 July 26, 1988
Tomoiu US 5,426,940 June 27, 1995
Bussing US 6,062,018 May 16, 2000
Jacobsen US 6,938,588 B2 Sept. 6, 2005
Murayama US 7,367,194 B2 May 6, 2008
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

3
Name Reference Date
Eric M.
Braun et al.
Proof-of-Principle Detonation
Driven, Linear Electric
Generator Facility, 46TH
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
AERONAUTICS AND
ASTRONAUTICS
(AIAA)/ASME/SAE/ASEE
JOINT PROPULSION
CONFERENCE & EXHIBIT
July 25–28, 2010

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5–7, 10, 11, and 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Jacobsen, Murayama, and either
Bodine or Tomoiu. Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 5–7,2 10, 11, and 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Braun, Murayama, and either
Bodine or Tomoiu. Final Act. 6.3
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
either Braun in view of Jacobsen or Jacobsen in view of Braun, Murayama,
either Bodine or Tomoiu, and Adams. Final Act. 10–11.

2 In this rejection, the Examiner lists claims 3 and 4. Final Act. 6. However,
these claims have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 2; see also Final Act. 1.
3 In this rejection, the Examiner relies on Jacobsen, rather than Braun, as the
primary reference, which is for disclosing a pulse detonation engine and a
linear power generator. See Final Act. 6. In the prior-mentioned rejection,
the Examiner relies on Braun as the primary reference, which is for
disclosing a pulse detonation engine and a linear power generator. See Final
Act. 2. With the exception of this difference, it appears that the Examiner
relies on all secondary references for similar teachings in both rejections.
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

4
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over either Braun in view of Jacobsen or Jacobsen in view of
Braun, Murayama, either Bodine or Tomoiu, and Valaev. Final Act. 11.
Claims 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over either Braun in view of Jacobsen or Jacobsen in view of
Braun, Murayama, either Bodine or Tomoiu, Adams, and Bussing. Final
Act. 12.

OPINION
Obviousness over Braun in view of Jacobsen, Murayama, and either Bodine
or Tomoiu
Appellant focuses only on the following limitations of independent
claim 1: “a divergent nozzle that links [a] combustion chamber of [a] pulse
detonation engine with [a] working chamber of [a] linear power generator”
and “an exhaust port provided within the divergent nozzle.” Appeal Br. 7–8
(emphasis omitted). Accordingly, claim 1 is representative of claims 5–7,
10, 11, and 13–16 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019). See Appeal
Br. 7–22; see also Reply Br. 2.4
As to the first limitation, Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in
finding that “Braun teaches a nozzle that ‘links the combustion chamber of
the pulse detonation engine with the working chamber of the linear power
generator.’” Appeal Br. 9 (quoting Final Act. 3). First, Appellant states that
“the Braun reference fails to account for the ‘divergent nozzle . . .’

4 Appellant does not provide any additional arguments in its Reply Brief and
states that “Appellant continues to repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by
reference the positions and arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief.” Reply
Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

5
limitation.” Id. However, as Appellant recognizes, “the Examiner has not
argued that Braun in fact discloses a divergent nozzle.” Id.; see also Final
Act. 4 (the Examiner conceding that Braun “do[es] not . . . disclose [the
nozzle] as divergent”). In other words, this argument does not address the
rejection because the Examiner does not rely on Braun for disclosing a
divergent nozzle.
Pointing out that “Braun’s only mention of a ‘nozzle’ is contained in
two paragraphs that bridge pages 10 and 11 of Braun’s paper” (Appeal Br.
9) and that because within this portion of the paper, Braun discloses that
“several steps must be taken to further develop this detonation-driven, linear
electric generator concept” (id. at 10 (citing Braun p. 11)), Appellant argues
that “the Braun disclosure does not provide an enabling disclosure as to the
incorporation of a nozzle into his disclosed system” (id.). Consequently,
according to Appellant, “Braun clearly fails to teach or suggest that such a
nozzle ‘links’ the pulse detonation engine (PDE) with a working chamber of
a linear power generator.” Id.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that Braun
discloses a power generation system having a pulse detonation engine that
includes a combustion chamber and a linear power generator having a
working chamber, in which the combustion chamber is positioned next to
the working chamber. Final Act. 2–4 (citing Braun Fig. 2). Appellant does
not dispute this finding. Further, Appellant acknowledges that Braun
discloses “[i]nstead of using a constant area tube, a PDE driver section could
be connected to a nozzle attached to a downstream section with
atmospheric pressure working gas.” Appeal Br. 9 (quoting Braun pp. 10–
11). Thus, Braun discloses a nozzle that could link the chamber of the pulse
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

6
detonation engine with a working chamber of a linear power generator. As to
Braun’s statement that “several steps must be taken to further develop this
detonation-driven, linear electric generator concept,” Appellant does not
explain why, based on Braun’s suggestion, an ordinary artisan would not be
able to attach a nozzle between the combustion chamber and the working
chamber, which are depicted in Braun’s Figure 2, without undue
experimentation or a reasonable expectation of success. See also Ans. 30
(explaining that Braun’s “disclosure is taken in the context of the ordinary
skill in the art”). Prior art references need only be enabling for the subject
matter they are cited to teach. It seems to us that Braun’s suggestion of a
nozzle would suffice to teach that subject matter to askilled artisan. There
may be, as Braun appears to acknowledge, technological hurdles to
overcome but Appellant has not identified subject matter overcoming those
hurdles in the claims before us for review. Braun need not be relied upon by
the Examiner for, and thus need not enable anything beyond, the scope of
Appellant’s claims. We are not apprised of evidence or technological
reasoning to explain why the skilled artisan would not be able to add such a
nozzle to Braun’s power generation system using routine engineering effort.
Consequently, Appellant’s contention that “Braun clearly fails to teach or
suggest that such a nozzle ‘links’ the pulse detonation engine (PDE) with a
working chamber of a linear power generator” does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s position. Appeal Br. 10. Furthermore, even if Braun alone is
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

7
deficient in regard to this aspect of the claimed subject matter, Jacobsen
would fill in the gap, as further discussed below.5
As to the Jacobsen reference, Appellant argues that “nowhere does
Jacobsen say anything about a ‘divergent nozzle’ in relation to Figures 1F or
1G” and “the portions of Figures 1F and 1G upon which it appears the
Examiner is relying are neither numbered nor described by Jacobsen.”
Appeal Br. 12. Here, we note that Appellant’s Specification does not define
the term “divergent nozzle”; however, we further note that the Specification
discusses a nozzle in relation to differences in the cross-sectional area of a
combustion chamber for gas expansion and “expands the combustion gases
expelled from the combustion chamber” (Spec. 4:5–13; see also id. at 3:14–
16). The Specification also discusses an “angle of divergence” (id. at 6:23–
25) and Appellant’s Figures 1 and 3A–3C all illustrate nozzle 46 having a
cone-shaped cross-sectional area that increases in the direction of gas flow.
Jacobsen’s Figures 1F and 1G clearly show the left portion of a chamber
having a cone-shaped cross-sectional area that allows gas expansion.
“[T]hings patent drawings show clearly are [not] to be disregarded.” In re
Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). We thus agree with the
Examiner’s assessment that Jacobsen discloses a divergent nozzle. See Ans.
37.
Appellant also argues that “it is critical to understand that the
components shown in Figures 1F and 1G are specific examples of the
‘energy extraction device’ shown in Jacobsen’s Figure 1, which generically

5 As discussed in the Examiner’s alternative rejection, Jacobsen is relied
upon for disclosing this aspect of the claimed subject matter. See Final Act.
6–7.
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

8
identifies the energy extraction device with reference numeral 32” and
“[w]hile Jacobsen discloses that the energy extraction device can be a linear
power generator that, as shown in Figure 1C, includes a piston 32 that drives
an electric generator 34, the components shown in Figures 1F and 1G are
mutually exclusive alternatives to that linear power generator.” Appeal Br.
12. As such, Appellant argues that “Jacobsen cannot be said to teach or
suggest providing a nozzle that ‘links the combustion chamber of the pulse
detonation engine with the working chamber of the linear power generator.’”
Id. at 13.
These contentions are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that
Jacobsen’s Figure 1 discloses “an analogous power generation system with
combustion chamber 12 and linear power generator 32 where a nozzle
[between 20 and 32[)]” resides therebetween. Final Act. 4–5. As shown in
Jacobsen’s Figure 1, the cross-sectional area of the chamber having energy
extraction device 32 is larger than the cross-sectional area of the chamber of
combustion tube 12, and the portion therebetween can be regarded as at least
a “nozzle,” consistent with the Specification’s description of a nozzle as
discussed above. Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellant that
“Jacobsen cannot be said to teach or suggest providing a nozzle that ‘links
the combustion chamber of the pulse detonation engine with the working
chamber of the linear power generator.’” Appeal Br. 13. In regard to the
“divergent” aspect of the required nozzle of claim 1, as discussed above,
Jacobsen’s Figures 1F and 1G clearly show the left portion of a chamber
having a cone-shaped cross-sectional area that allows gas expansion. Thus,
consistent with Appellant’s disclosure as discussed above, this portion of
Jacobsen’s Figures 1F and 1G can be regarded as a divergent nozzle to the
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

9
extent the nozzle of Jacobsen’s Figure 1D cannot be regarded as such. In the
Final Office Action, the Examiner takes the position that “a divergent nozzle
[]step junction in Fig. 1 may be replaced by a conical / diverging nozzle, see
Fig. 1E–1G as an equivalent construction used in the art.” Final Act. 7. In
the Answer, the Examiner explains that “one of ordinary skill in the art
would be able to glean from the teachings from the alternative embodiments
of Figures 1F and 1G and how they could be applied to the main
embodiment of Fig[ure] 1.” Ans. 34–35. The Examiner further explains that
it is noted that the divergent nozzle at the exit is specifically
shown in Fig. 1F and will aid in reducing flow losses, as it
presents a more gradual area change, vs a step area nozzle. As is
well known in fluid mechanical principles, step area changes
create flow pressure losses because fluids prefer gradual area
changes[] in the nozzle as shown in Fig. 1F or 1G of Jacobsen.
Using a divergent nozzle, ala Fig. 1F or 1G, would be beneficial
in the system of Fig. 1 with its linear power generator, to reduce
flow losses. Also, the divergent nozzle would be beneficial in the
system of Fig. 1G, prior to expanding in a turbine engine,
because it would aid in pressure recovery, as it presents a more
gradual area change, vs a step area nozzle. Note the turbine Fig.
1G is equivalent as a power generation device to the linear
power generator of Fig. 1.

Ans. 36–37 (emphases added).6, 7 Appellant does not explain with evidence
or argument why the Examiner’s reasoning in this regard is incorrect.

6 In footnote 5 (of Ans. 36), the Examiner asserts that such “gradual area
changes” are “streamlined flow area changes. Definition excerpted from
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/streamlined: streamlined adjective
‘having a contour designed to offer the least possible resistance to a current
of air, water, etc.; optimally shaped for motion or conductivity.’”
7 We also note that Appellant’s Specification states that the expanded gas
resulting from the diverging nozzle “results in greater force being imparted
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

10
Obviousness is not rebutted simply by showing some subcombination of
features recited in a claim is not found in a single reference.
Appellant also disputes the Examiner’s findings concerning
Murayama disclosing a “divergent nozzle that links the combustion chamber
of the pulse detonation engine with the working chamber of the linear power
generator,” as required for claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. This argument is
unavailing because, as discussed above, Jacobsen already discloses the
combined aspect of this claimed subject matter. Consequently, Appellant’s
contentions regarding any deficiency of Murayama is also unavailing. See
id. at 13–15.
In regard to the limitation “an exhaust port provided within the
divergent nozzle,” Appellant makes the following arguments. We first note
to the extent that Appellant is arguing Jacobsen fails to disclose this claimed
subject matter (see Appeal Br. 16–18), such argument is inconsequential
because of the Examiner’s additional reliance on Bodine for this claimed
subject matter. See Ans. 38 (explaining that Jacobsen “was applied with”
Bodine “to address this limitation”). Even if Jacobsen does not disclose an
exhaust port provided within the divergent nozzle, we note that Jacobsen
discloses a nozzle in Figure 1 and a divergent nozzle in Figures 1F and 1G
as discussed above, and that Jacobsen clearly discloses an exhaust port

to the drive piston of the linear power generator.” Spec. 3:14–18. This is not
unlike Figure 1G of Jacobsen whose expanding gases also impart energy to a
downstream device, here, “energy extraction device” 32c. Jacobsen 9:27–
28. Jacobsen further teaches that “the energy extraction device can be of any
type known to those in the art” (Jacobsen 9:17–18), which can include a
piston, a thrust nozzle, a pressure chamber, and a turbine.

Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

11
(exhaust outlet 37 within the chamber of energy extraction device 32). See
Jacobsen Fig. 1. Keeping that in mind, we now turn to what Bodine
discloses.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner states that
[n]oting that [a] nozzle is located proximate the inlet of the linear
power generator or in other words near the top of the
conventional linear expander in a piston engine[], Bodine
[teaches] the exhaust valve 21 is located on a “nozzle”, i.e. the
top of the piston working chamber of the linear power generator
17.
Final Act. 5 (emphasis added). The Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious to “make the exhaust valve of the prior art [i.e., Jacobsen,] at
the inlet of the linear power generator [as taught by Jacobsen],[8] i.e. within
the diverging nozzle as taught by [Bodine,9] as a conventional location used
to locate an exhaust valve used in linear expander / piston devices.” Id. at 6.
Appellant contests the Examiner’s application of Bodine in this
combination of cited art to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Appeal Br.
18–20. More particularly, Appellant argues that “Bodine’s system shown in
Figure 1 (upon which the Examiner relied) is a totally different kind of
system than that disclosed in the Braun reference or claimed by [Appellant]”
because “[w]hile Braun discloses a system that uses a pulse detonation
engine to drive a linear power generator, Bodine’s system comprises a
conventional internal combustion engine 17 whose exhaust is used to
generate pressure pulses within a fluid column 15 for the purpose of driving

8 Second set of bracketing provided by Examiner.
9 Here, the Examiner refers to the Braun, rather than Bodine. We understand
the Examiner’s reference to Braun, instead of Bodine, as an inadvertent
error.
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

12
a turbine 34.” Id. at 18–19. Consequently, Appellant argues that “Bodine
does not even disclose any of a ‘pulse detonation engine,’ a ‘linear power
generator,’ or a ‘divergent nozzle’ that ‘links’ them” and “Bodine’s exhaust
valve 21 is provided in the ‘cylinder head’ of the internal combustion
engine 17.” Id. at 19.
These arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on
Bodine only for teaching a particular location of an exhaust port (exhaust
valve 21). Although references must be considered as a whole and in
context, obviousness is not necessarily rebutted by showing a reference
includes some subject matter arguably unrelated to the claimed invention.
The critical issue is whether the skilled artisan would see some relevance in
the teachings that are relied upon regardless of whether a reference includes
subject matter neither relevant nor relied upon. In the Answer, the Examiner
persuasively responds that
Appellant’s linear power generator is a type of piston engine and
the internal combustion engine 17 of Bodine is also a piston
engine. . . . The Examiner is in agreement with [Appellant’s]
assessment that the exhaust valve 21 of Bodine is in the head end
of the piston engine 17. Jacobsen et al[.] already teach placing
the exhaust port / valve near the head end, while Bodine would
teach placing the exhaust port / valve on the head end of the
piston engine. Bodine Jr [teaches] the exhaust valve 21 is located
on a “divergent nozzle”, i.e. the head end of the piston working
chamber of the linear power generator 17. Note, the head end of
the piston working chamber is divergent relative to the incoming
flows from valve 25. While the output of the piston engine 17
may feed a turbine 34, the location of the exhaust valve is solely
what is being applied.
Ans. 39 (emphases added). Appellant’s contention does not address why the
identified distinctions would have made a difference with regard to the
skilled artisan’s interpretation of the relevance of the subject matter relied
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

13
upon by the Examiner. The Examiner’s position that Appellant chooses what
would be regarded as a relatively common and well-known exhaust valve
location in other engines and merely adopts such a location for pulse
detonation engines stands essentially uncontroverted.
To the extent that Appellant is arguing Bodine is non-analogous art,
we disagree.
Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is
analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is
not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved.

In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Bodine can be regarded
as being in the same field of endeavor because as the Examiner correctly
responds, “Appellant’s linear power generator is a type of piston engine and
the internal combustion engine 17 of Bodine is also a piston engine.” Ans.
39. In other words, both Appellant’s device and Bodine’s device share
similar structure of a piston engine and share similar function of generating
power, and thus, both are in the same field of endeavor. Bodine can also be
regarded as being analogous under the second prong of the test reiterated
above. The Specification discloses that “it would be desirable to have a more
efficient power generation system that utilizes a combustion source such as a
pulse detonation engine.” Spec. 3:9–11. The Specification further discloses
that “[t]he system can further include passive exhaust ports that are used to
expel exhaust from the system between combustions.” Id. at 3:18–20. The
Specification also discloses that “once the wave passes . . . the flaps can
open . . . to enable the exhaust gases to exit the working chamber.” Id. at
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

14
7:9–11. Thus, a particular problem with which Appellant was involved was
how to expel gas in a combustion chamber to provide efficient power
generation in an engine. Bodine “relates generally to a combustion
apparatus, and more particularly to thermal jet engines.” Bodine 1:1–3.
Bodine’s objective “is to provide a thermal jet engine . . . having provision
for supplying or augmenting a flow of auxiliary fluid.” Id. at 2:47–50.
Bodine states that “[d]uring the expansion stroke of engine 17 (which may
be assumed to be a four cycle engine), the valve 21 opens to permit
discharge of exhaust gases.” Id. at 4:40–43. Bodine also discloses that “[t]he
flow of exhaust gases through the former is controlled by a conventional
exhaust valve 21.” Id. at 3:60–62. Thus, Bodine is reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which Appellant is concerned: how to expel
gases from a combustion chamber for engine efficiency.
Lastly, Appellant contends that the Examiner errs in finding that
“Tomoi[u] teaches an exhaust valve that is located within a nozzle.” Appeal
Br. 20. Appellant’s contention is persuasive because the Examiner does not
explain sufficiently why the location of Tomoiu’s exhaust port would
motivate a skilled artisan to move an exhaust port to a location within a
nozzle. Ans. 40. However, Tomoiu is applied as an alternative reference to
Bodine, and as discussed above, we find no error in the Examiner’s
application of Bodine in the combination of cited art.
Accordingly, for these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 5–7, 10, 11, and 13–16 as unpatentable over the combination of
Braun in view of Jacobsen, Murayama, and either Bodine or Tomoiu. As we
set forth reasoning, which may differ from or supplement the Examiner’s
reasoning, we designate our affirmance of this rejection as including a new
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

15
ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to afford Appellant the
procedural options for response associated therewith.

Obviousness over Jacobsen in view of Braun, Murayama, and either Bodine
or Tomoiu
As pointed out in footnote 3 above, in this alternative rejection, the
Examiner relies on Jacobsen, rather than Braun, as the primary reference, for
disclosing a pulse detonation engine and a linear power generator. See Final
Act. 6. Appellant relies on arguments made with respect to the first rejection.
Appeal Br. 22. As we find those arguments unpersuasive for the reasons
discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
5–7, 10, 11, and 13–16 as unpatentable over the combination of Jacobsen in
view of Braun, Murayama, and either Bodine or Tomoiu. Once again, we
designate our affirmance of this rejection as including a new ground of
rejection.

Obviousness over either Braun in view of Jacobsen or Jacobsen in view of
Braun, Murayama, either Bodine or Tomoiu, and Adams
Obviousness over either Braun in view of Jacobsen or Jacobsen in view of
Braun, Murayama, either Bodine or Tomoiu, and Valaev
Obviousness over either Braun in view of Jacobsen or Jacobsen in view of
Braun, Murayama, either Bodine or Tomoiu, Adams, and Bussing
Appellant does not provide substantive arguments for these rejections
and relies on arguments presented for parent claim 1. Appeal Br. 22–25. As
we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we likewise
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 9–11, 13, and 15–17
over the variously indicated combinations of cited art. Because the
affirmances of these rejections rely on the rejections of parent claim 1, we
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

16
also designate our affirmances of these rejections as including a new ground
of rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as being obvious, are affirmed, under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1, 5–7,
10, 11,
13–16
103 Braun in view of
Jacobsen,
Murayama, (Bodine
or Tomoiu)
1, 5–7,
10, 11,
13–16
1, 5–7,
10, 11,
13–16
1, 5–7,
10, 11,
13–16
103 Jacobsen in view of
Braun, Murayama,
(Bodine or Tomoiu)
1, 5–7,
10, 11,
13–16
1, 5–7,
10, 11,
13–16
9 103 (Braun in view of
Jacobsen or
Jacobsen in view of
Braun), Murayama,
(Bodine or
Tomoiu), Adams
9 9
10, 11, 13 103 (Braun in view of
Jacobsen or
Jacobsen in view of
Braun), Murayama,
(Bodine or
Tomoiu), Valaev
10, 11, 13 10, 11,
13
15–17 103 (Braun in view of
Jacobsen or
Jacobsen in view of
Braun), Murayama,
(Bodine or
Tomoiu), Adams,
Bussing
15–17 15–17
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–7, 9–
11, 13–17
1, 5–7,
9–11,
13–17

Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

18
FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the Appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:

(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the
opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
Appeal 2021-001112
Application 15/126,823

19
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; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)