Ex Parte Blanchard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2017

13098252 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2017)

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.
13/098,252 04/29/2011 Ryan Blanchard 250466-1 8292
6147 7590 07/26/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
BARGERO, JOHN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2017 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 RYAN BLANCHARD and
GREGORY MICHAEL LASKOWSKI
Appeal 2015-00693 51
Application 13/098,252
Technology Center 3700
Before: SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—11, 13—17, 20, and 21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system for cooling gasification products.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gasification cooling system, comprising:
a radiant syngas cooler having an inlet, an outlet, and a
fluid passage disposed between the inlet and the outlet;
an annular wall disposed about the fluid passage, wherein
a fluid stream is configured to flow in a flow direction from the
inlet toward the outlet, wherein the fluid stream comprises a
syngas received from a gasifier; and
one or more tangential fluid jets circumferentially
disposed about the annular wall of the fluid passage and
configured to inject fluid into the fluid passage to annularly
circulate the fluid stream throughout the fluid passage as the fluid
stream flows in the flow direction, wherein the fluid injected via
the one or more tangential fluid jets comprises carbon dioxide,
air, oxygen, nitrogen, a product gas produced via a gasification
process, or a combination thereof.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Kang
Corry
Abbasi
US 2002/0079089 A1
US 2009/0047193 A1
US 2011/0072720 A1
June 27, 2002
Feb. 19, 2009
Mar. 31,2011
2
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 8—10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abbasi and Corry.
II. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13—15, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abbasi, Corry, and Kang.
OPINION
Rejection I
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “one or more tangential fluid jets
circumferentially disposed about the annular wall of the fluid passage and
configured to inject fluid into the fluid passage to annularly circulate the
fluid stream throughout the fluid passage as the fluid stream flows in the
flow direction.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). We reproduce Appellants’
Figure 2 below.* 2
2 The Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter refers to Appellants’ Figures
2 and 3 as depicting the claimed structure. Appeal Br. 5.
3
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
-184
i
Appellants’ Figure 2 is a cross-sectional side view of a radiant syngas cooler
(RSC) including inlet 152, outlet 154, and heat exchanger tubing 158. Spec.
7—8, 31—32. The tangential fluid jets are represented by arrows 161.
Spec. 133.
The Examiner finds that Abbasi discloses most of the features recited
in claim 1, but fails to disclose “one or more tangential fluid jets
circumferentially disposed about the annular wall of the fluid passage and
configured to inject fluid into the fluid passage to annularly circulate the
fluid stream throughout the fluid passage as the fluid stream flows in the
4
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
flow direction.” Final Act. 3 (quoting claim 1). The Examiner relies on the
teachings of Corry to remedy this deficiency, finding that Figure 3 of Corry
teaches one or more tangential fluid jets disposed circumferentially about an
annular wall of a fluid passage and configured to inject fluid into the fluid
passage. Final Act. 3^4. Noting that steam comprises oxygen, the Examiner
finds that the fluid injected via the fluid jets in Corry comprises carbon
dioxide, air, oxygen, nitrogen, a product gas, or a combination thereof. Final
Act. 4.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to improve
the flow or circulation of the additional fluid to increase mixing,
combustion, or cooling of the structure [in Abbasi,] which would be
achieved by the tangential or cyclonic injection structure disclosed by
[Corry].” Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that this modification would
increase “the cooling effect of the fluid by increasing contact area and
duration with the heat exchange tubes by utilizing a tangential flow
arrangement.” Final Act. 4. Additionally, in the Advisory Action, the
Examiner states, “the configuration of feeding gas tangentially into a
chamber would be obvious because that would cause a better mixing of the
gasses which would be advantageous in both applications [combustion and
cooling].” Adv. Act. 2.
We reproduce Figure 2 of Abbasi below.
5
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
Figure 2 of Abbasi is a cross-sectional view of a radiant syngas cooler in
which syngas generally flows from inlet 152 to outlet 154 in a downward
direction parallel to heat exchanger tubing 158. Abbasi 8—9, 33—35.
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding that the fluid
injected via the fluid jets in Corry is directed tangentially in relation to the
annular wall of the fluid passage and includes carbon dioxide, air, oxygen,
nitrogen, a product gas, or a combination thereof. See Appeal Br. 8—11.
Appellants’ arguments focus on the Examiner’s proposed modification. Id.
First, Appellants argue that “[ujnlike Abbasi which relates to radiant
syngas cooling, Corry relates to quench type syngas cooling. Quench syngas
6
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
cooling involves cooling to an even lower temperature (between 400°F and
600°F) and solidifying particulate for removal from the syngas. These
cooling systems operate under different principles with different
mechanisms.” Appeal Br. 8.
Contrary to Appellants’ contention, Corry describes its system as a
“radiant” syngas cooler. See Corry 118 (stating “[i]n the exemplary
embodiment, syngas cooler 100 is a radiant syngas cooler.”). In any event,
both Abbasi and Corry relate to syngas coolers, as does the cooling system
recited in claim 1. Thus, Abbasi and Corry are in the same field as
Appellants’ invention and are, therefore, analogous art.
Appellants also argue that, in the Final Action, the Examiner refers to
paragraph 27 of Abbasi, and this paragraph relates to Abbasi’s combustor.
See Appeal Br. 8—10. Appellants then quote paragraph 36 of Abbasi with
emphasis on certain text. Appeal Br. 9—10. We reproduce a portion of
paragraph 36 of Abbasi, including Appellants’ emphasized text, below.
Accordingly, a gas inlet 172 may transmit a non-corrosive fluid,
such as a shielding gas 180 (e.g., nitrogen), to the RSC146. This
non-corrosive fluid may flow generally downward between the
vessel 148 and the tubing 158 of RSC 146 form a protective
barrier, for example, against syngas migration into the annular
space between the tubes 158 and the vessel 148.
After quoting this text, Appellants contend that Abbasi does not use nitrogen
to cool any combustion product, but instead uses nitrogen as part of the
combustion process. Appeal Br. 10. As to whether the proposed
modification would result in better mixing in Abbasi, as found by the
Examiner, Appellants contend “the Examiner’s statement in the Advisory
Action ... is reflective of hindsight gained from the current claims because
there are several ways to mix a number of gases and the Examiner has not
7
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
stated why specifically ‘the configuration of feeding gas tangentially into a
chamber’” would have been obvious. Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner’s response includes two aspects. Ans. 9—10. First, the
Examiner finds that controlling combustion via the introduction of nitrogen
ultimately controls the temperature of the gas, which results in cooling. Id.
Second, the Examiner reiterates the findings in the Final Action and
Advisory Action that the proposed modification to Abbasi would result in
better mixing, and the resultant homogenous flow would improve heat
transfer with the walls and tubes of radiant syngas cooler 146. Ans. 10
(citing Corry 12). Thus, the second aspect of the Examiner’s response
focuses on the flow in radiant syngas cooler 146 rather than the combustion
process discussed in paragraph 27 of Abbasi.
In reply, Appellants re-state that Abbasi relates to radiant syngas
cooling and Corry to quench syngas cooling. Reply Br. 4. Appellants then
summarize the comments made by the Examiner and the teachings of Abbasi
and Corry. Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants assert that Abbasi solves a “problem
of cooling gas from a gasifier by configuring an annular seal having a
bellows, which expands and contracts in response to movement (e.g.,
thermal expansion and contraction).” Reply 5. Appellants contend, “Abbasi
does not indicate any deficiency and it is not clear to Appellant, as suggested
by the Examiner on page 4 of the Final Action, why there can be any
purpose of increasing the cooling effect in Abbasi’s system over and above
the solutions it already teaches.” Id.
In an argument not raised in the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend,
“[tjhere is no structure in Abbasi that can support or incorporate Corry’s
8
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
tangential jets. Therefore, Appellants] contend[ ] that no likelihood of
success exists in this case regarding the hypothetical combination of the
cited references.” Reply Br. 6.
Appellants’ arguments are unavailing. Although we appreciate that
paragraph 27 of Abbasi discusses nitrogen in relation to a combustion
chamber, another paragraph of Abbasi, quoted by Appellants, relates to
injecting nitrogen in a radiant syngas cooler 146. See Abbasi ]f 36; see also
Appeal Br. 9—10. In other words, Abbasi provides two distinct disclosures
of the use of nitrogen, one for a combustion process (see Abbasi 127) and
one for use within a cooling process (see Abbasi 136). Thus, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding (Final Act.
3) that Abbasi discloses a gasification cooling system including one or more
fluid jets that inject a fluid comprising carbon dioxide, air, oxygen, nitrogen,
a gasification product gas, or a combination thereof.
Additionally, a substantial portion of Appellants’ argument rests on an
incorrect premise, namely, that Abbasi must use nitrogen to cool a
combustion product before it is proper to conclude that providing tangential
fluid jets about the annular wall of radiant syngas cooler 146 for the
purposes of cooling and mixing would have been obvious. We disagree.
Abbasi intends to cool syngas via radiant syngas cooler 146. See Abbasi,
Abstract, 11. Even if Abbasi does not teach using nitrogen to cool the
syngas in radiant syngas cooler 146, Appellants do not contest, in the Appeal
Brief, that the Examiner’s proposed modification to Abbasi (using tangential
jets as taught by Corry) would provide more uniform flow and result in
more effective heat transfer between the fluid and heat exchanger tubes.
Additionally, Corry teaches that its tangential flow arrangement prevents
9
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
dead zones and improves flow uniformity. See Corry || 45 46, 48-49. The
improvement of flow uniformity and prevention of dead zones taught by
Corry is congruent with the Examiner’s reasoning that modifying Abbasi as
proposed would result in better mixing, thus improving cooling.
Consequently, the Examiner’s finding that the proposed modification to
Abbasi would have this effect is supported by Corry’s explicit disclosure,
and the Examiner’s rationale for the proposed modification is supported by
adequate underpinnings.
As for Appellants’ contention that the Examiner relied upon improper
hindsight because there are several ways to improve mixing, we do not agree
because, as discussed above, the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed
modification is supported by rational underpinnings found in the prior art.
The existence of other possible modifications that would be effective does
not detract from the Examiner’s reasoning. For a proper determination of
obviousness, it is not necessary that the Examiner’s proposed modification
be the only (or even the best) modification available for achieving the
desired effect. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (stating, “our case law
does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the
most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide
motivation for the current invention.”).
Regarding Appellants’ contention that “Abbasi solves its problem of
cooling gas from a gasifier by configuring an annular seal having a bellows”
(Reply Br. 5), Appellants do not explain adequately why the Examiner’s
proposed modification to Abbasi would not further improve cooling and
mixing as the Examiner finds. The mere fact that Abbasi addresses certain
problems by use of a bellows does not negate the Examiner’s reasoning in
10
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
applying Corry’s general disclosure of the benefits of providing tangential
flow.
As for Appellants’ contention that there would have been no
reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Abbasi and
Corry (see Reply Br. 6), this argument is untimely inasmuch as it was not
made in the Appeal Brief and is not responsive to any new issue raised in the
Examiner’s Answer. Accordingly, we do not address this argument because
Appellants’ failure to raise it in the Appeal Brief constitutes waiver of the
issue. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is affirmed. Appellants rely on
the same arguments for the patentability of independent claims 9 and 16
(Appeal Br. 10), and, for the same reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims. Appellants make no separate arguments for
dependent claims 8 and 10. Appeal Br. 8—10. Accordingly, these claims fall
with corresponding independent claims 1 and 9.
Rejection II
Appellants rely on the same arguments for Rejection II as those
discussed above regarding Rejection I. See Appeal Br. 8—11. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13—15, 17, 20,
and 21 as unpatentable over Abbasi, Corry, and Kang.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—11, 13—17, 20,
and 21 is affirmed.
11
Appeal 2015-006935
Application 13/098,252
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
12