Ex Parte Haynes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

13470577 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/470,577 05/14/2012
6147 7590 10/02/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joel Meier Haynes
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.
30650-0037 (155857) 9818
EXAMINER
CHAU,ALAIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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 JOEL MEIER HA YNES and THOMAS EDWARD JOHNSON
Appeal2017-006437
Application 13/4 70,577
Technology Center 3700
Before, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joel Meier Haynes and Thomas Edward Johnson (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2,
5-8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20. Claims 3, 4, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 19 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-006437
Application 13/470,577
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates "generally to gas turbine engines
and more particularly relate[ s] to a combustor for use with a gas turbine
engine having an enhanced secondary combustion system for improved
emissions and performance." Spec. ,r 101, Figs. 1, 5. Claims 1, 12, and 15
are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A secondary combustion system for introducing a
fuel/air mixture into a flow of combustion gases m a
combustor of a gas turbine engine, comprising:
a manifold ring; and
a plurality of injectors extending from the manifold
ring into the flow of combustion gases;
the plurality of injectors comprising a plurality of
jets in communication with the manifold ring and
configured for introducing the fuel/air mixture into the
flow of combustion gases, wherein each of the plurality of
jets is angled at a first angle with respect to the flow of
combustion gases upstream of the secondary combustion
system for increasing the mixing rate of the fuel/air
mixture into the flow of combustion gases, and further
wherein each of the plurality of jets is angled at a second
angle with respect to a wall of the respective injector,
wherein the second angle is variable.
2
Appeal2017-006437
Application 13/470,577
REJECTIONS 1
I. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness. 2
II. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Haynes (US 6,868,676 Bl, issued Mar. 22, 2005).
III. Claims 8, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Haynes, Nilsson (US 2010/0107649 Al, published May 6,
2010), and Anand (US 2009/0223201 Al, published Sept. 10, 2009).
IV. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Haynes, Lee (US 2009/0084109 Al, published Apr. 2, 2009), or
Hunkert (US 6,520,145 B2, issued Feb. 18, 2003).
V. Claims 10, 11, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Haynes, Nilsson and/or Anand, and Molaison (US
2010/0325958 Al, published Dec. 30, 2010).
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 8 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness regarding the "and/or"
claim language. See Final Action 5 (hereinafter "Final Act.") (dated Feb. 12,
2016); see also Examiner's Answer 2 (hereinafter "Ans.") (dated Jan. 10,
2017).
2 In the summary of the claims rejected for indefiniteness, the Examiner omits
dependent claim 8, we consider this a typographical error. See Final Act. 5.
3
Appeal2017-006437
Application 13/470,577
ANALYSIS
Rejection I-Indefiniteness Rejection
Claim 1, 2, 5---8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20
Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 15, the Examiner determines
that "the limitation 'wherein the second angle is variable"' is indefinite.
Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner determines that "it is unclear what
is supposed to be meant by this phrase. The instant specification states only
that 'the angle 8 may vary herein' (Para. 125), and does not specify any
particular angle, and does not clarify what is meant by 'is variable' as used
in the claims." Id.
Appellants contend that the angle 8 being "variable" is equivalent to
the angle being "alterable" and the opposite of the angle being "fixed."
Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 10. 3 Appellants further contend that "the
absolute numerical value of the second angle may hypothetically 'vary' from
situation to situation, as opposite of being 'fixed' under all circumstances."
Appeal Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 3.
Appellants Specification discloses that
Fig[ ure] 5 shows a portion of the secondary injector 240 as
may be described herein. The secondary injector 240 may have
a number of jets 310 positioned thereon .... the jets 310 of the
secondary injector 240 may have an angled configuration 380 for
introducing the fuel/air mixture 365. Specifically, the jets 310
may have an angle 8 with respect to the wall 370 of the injector
240. The jets 310 may have the angled configuration 380 with
an upstream configuration with respect to the flow of combustion
gases 35 so as to increase the mixing rate with reduced
penetration. The jets 310 also may have the angled configuration
3 Supplemental Appeal Brief (hereinafter "Appeal Br.") (filed Oct. 5, 2016);
Reply Brief (hereinafter "Reply Br.") (filed Mar. 8, 2017).
4
Appeal2017-006437
Application 13/470,577
3 80 with a downstream configuration so as to improve flame
liftoff. The angle 8 may vary herein.
See Spec. ,r 125, Fig. 5. 4
Upon review of paragraph 125 of the Specification and Figure 5 of the
drawings, a skilled artisan would recognize that the second angle (angle 8)
of a jet with respect to a wall of the respective injector may hypothetically
be altered or varied from situation to situation as opposed to the second
angle (angle 8) of the jet being "fixed" with respect to a wall of the
respective injector under all circumstances (in every situation). We agree
with Appellants that "the absolute numerical value of angle 8 may assume
any value that is technically feasible." Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 10.
As such, we agree with Appellants that the limitation "wherein the second
angle is variable" is definite.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 for
indefiniteness.
Rejection II-Anticipation Rejection
Claims 1, 2, and 5-7
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2 and
5-7 separate from those presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14. We
select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2 and 5-7 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4 We reference amended paragraph 125 of the Specification (filed Feb. 3,
2015).
5
Appeal2017-006437
Application 13/470,577
Appellants contend that "Haynes merely describes that the exit 34
farthest form [sic] the coupling of the injector 12 of PIG. 10 is directed at an
angle of about 45 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the injector 12."
Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5. In particular, Appellants contend that:
[T]he Examiner is apparently equating the claim element "each
of the plurality of jets is angled at a second angle with respect to
a wall of the respective injector, wherein the second angle is
variable" of [independent claim 1] with two occurrences of
angles 90 and 45 degrees for two different jects [sic.] at two
different locations of Haynes by the statement, "the second angle
varies among the jets". It is scientifically not acceptable that
varying for "each of the plurality of jest" [sic.] is equivalent of
varying "among the jets".
Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5---6 ("[O]ccurrence of one or more of any
instance ('among the jets') is not equal to or equivalent of occurrence for
'each of the plurality of jets."').
As an initial matter, we acknowledge Appellants' position that
varying the second angle for "each of the plurality of jets" is not equivalent
to varying the second angle "among the jets." See Appeal Br. 13; see also
Reply Br. 5---6. However, claim 1 is not limited to the second angle varying
for each of the plurality of jets with respect to a wall of the respective
injector. Claim 1 more broadly recites that "the second angle is variable."
Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.; See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982) (Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 reads
that each of the plurality of jets is angled at a second angle with respect to a
wall of the respective injector and that the second angle can vary among the
6
Appeal2017-006437
Application 13/470,577
plurality of jets with respect to a wall of the respective injector. See Appeal
Br. 16, Claims App.
In support of the phrase "the second angle is variable," Appellants
provide the following example: "if the angle is O degree, the jet will be
parallel to the wall; and if the angle is 90 degrees, the jet will be
perpendicular to the wall, provided the parallel and perpendicular positions
are possible by injector and wall design." See Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply
Br. 3. Similarly, in this case, the Examiner finds that Haynes discloses that
some jets have a second 90 degree angle with respect to the wall of the
injector and that "the jet furthest from the coupling of the injector can be at a
45 degree angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the injector (and therefore
at a [second] 45 degree angle with respect to the wall of the injector)." Ans.
4; see also id. at 5; Final Act. 6; Haynes, 8:29--32, Figs. 7-10. The
Examiner concludes that "the second angle is 'variable', since at least two of
the plurality of jets have different second angles than the rest." Ans. 4; see
also id. at 5 ("[T]he jets at 45 degrees would have an angle that varies with
respect to the jets at 90 degrees, and vice versa."). Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 1, the Examiner's findings are sound and
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellants do not provide
persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Haynes. We further sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 5-7,
which fall with claim 1.
7
Appeal2017-006437
Application 13/470,577
Rejections III- V- Obviousness Rejections
Claims 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20
Appellants contend that:
[I]n relation to the 35 USC 102 rejections of independent claim
1, Haynes does not teach or suggest the cited claim element of
independent claims 12 and 15. Therefore independent claims 12
and 15 are patentable over Haynes; and claims 8, 10, 11, 17, 18
and 20 which depend either from independent claims 1, 12 or 15
are patentable over Haynes.
Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 7.
As discussed above, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Haynes. Accordingly, for
the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, we likewise sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5-8,
10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 for indefiniteness.
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and
5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8