Ex Parte Hoke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

13832507 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/832,507 03/15/2013 James B. Hoke
54549 7590 08/30/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
64712US02;
67097-2235PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
6267
EXAMINER
SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES B. HOKE, TIMOTHY S. SNYDER,
DAVID KWOKA, and ROBERT M. SONNTAG 1
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-18, 20, and 21. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 United Technologies Corporation ("Appellant") is the Applicant as
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claim 19 is objected to as being depending upon a rejected base claim, but
is deemed allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 12.
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1. A fuel system for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a plurality of duplex nozzles, wherein the plurality of
duplex nozzles are positioned circumferentially about an engine
longitudinal axis and at least two of the plurality of duplex
nozzles are positioned on either side of a top center position
relative to the engine longitudinal axis;
a plurality of simplex nozzles;
a primary manifold operable to communicate fuel to a
primary flow jet in each of the plurality of duplex nozzles;
a secondary manifold operable to communicate fuel to a
secondary flow jet in each of the plurality of duplex nozzles and
a secondary flow jet in each of the plurality of simplex nozzles;
and
an equalizer valve in communication with the primary
manifold and the secondary manifold, the equalizer valve
movable between an open position and a closed position, the
closed position is operable to permit a supply of fuel pressure to
the primary manifold that is greater than fuel pressure to the
secondary manifold, and the open position is operable to permit
supply of fuel pressure to the primary manifold with essentially
an equal fuel pressure as the secondary manifold.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Runkle
Von Der Bank
Howell
Goldberg
US 6,915,638 B2
US 6,945,053 B2
US 6,968,699 B2
US 7,540,141 B2
2
July 12, 2005
Sept. 20, 2005
Nov. 29, 2005
June 2, 2009
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Von Der Bank. Final Act. 2.
II. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Von Der Bank and Howell. Id. at 9-11.
III. Claims 14--18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Von Der Bank, Howell, and Goldberg. Id. at
11-12.
IV. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goldberg and Howell. Id. at 3-8.
V. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Goldberg, Howell, and Runkle. Id. at 8.
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Von Der Bank discloses all of the limitations
of independent claim 8, including, in relevant part:
forming a high fuel-air ratio circumferential zone at a top center
position [of a combustor] and forming a low fuel-air ratio
circumferential zone at a bottom center position ... , wherein
the high fuel-air ratio is generated by at least two duplex fuel
nozzles disposed on either side of the top center position and
the low fuel-air ratio is generated by at least two simplex fuel
nozzles disposed on either side of a bottom center position.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.); Final Act. 2. More particularly, the Examiner
identifies primary fuel nozzles 8 as the simplex nozzles and fuel mini-
nozzles 13 (which "feature a higher fuel injection velocity, resulting in a
richer local fuel-air mixture" (Von Der Bank 4:3-5)) as the duplex nozzles.
Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that the "zones comprising simplex
3
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
injector 8, and zones comprising duplex injectors 13 ... alternate." Id.
( citing Von Der Bank, Fig. 8). The Examiner further finds that "the nozzles
can be asymmetrically arranged ... , such that two nozzles with a high fuel-
air ratio are at the top dead center (14 in [F]igure 7 below) and two nozzles
with a low fuel-air ratio are at a bottom dead center (15 in [F]igure 7
below)." Id. (citing Von Der Bank 3:61---64). The Examiner's annotated
version of Von Der Bank's Figure 7 (id. at 3) is reproduced below.
Figore 7 of Von Der Bank
Annotated Figure 7 shown above depicts a simplified, schematic
presentation of an asymmetrical arrangement of lean premix burners along
the circumference of a single annular combustor in which "several adjacent
lean premix modules 14 are in operation (hatching) while next to them
several lean premix modules 15 are not in operation ( no hatching)." Von
Der Bank 3:56---67. The annotated figure includes a notation with an arrow
illustrating the position that the Examiner has identified as the "top dead
center" of the combustor. Final Act. 2-3.
Appellant argues that Figure 7 "do[ es] not disclose different nozzle
configurations, but instead disclose[s] nozzles that are in operation (14) and
those that are not in operation (15)." Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant continues that Figure 7 "do[ es] not show positions between
duplex and simplex nozzles, but only if a nozzle is functioning or not." Id.
4
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
We agree with Appellant's argument. The Examiner has not adequately
explained how Von Der Bank's disclosure of several adjacent lean premix
modules being in operation next to several lean premix modules that are not
in operation (Von Der Bank, Fig. 7 ("asymmetrical arrangement")) supports
by a preponderance of the evidence the determination that two nozzles with
a high fuel-air ratio are at a relative top position and two nozzles with a low
fuel-air ratio are at a relative bottom position of a combustor, as found by the
Examiner. See Final Act. 2.
Von Der Bank suggests that primary fuel nozzles 8 are "distributed
evenly along the circumference" of a fuel supply ring (Von Der Bank 3 :4 7-
49, Fig. 4) and that fuel mini-nozzles 13 "are arranged in a cluster at the fuel
supply ring 4" (id. at 4:2-3, Fig. 8). Von Der Bank's Figures 6 and 7,
respectively, illustrate a symmetrical circumference pattern of lean premix
modules in which the modules are alternately in operation and not in
operation and an asymmetrical circumference pattern in which several
adjacent modules are in operation and several modules next to them are not
in operation. Id. at 3:56-67. The Examiner has not adequately explained
how Figures 6-8 indicate that a high fuel-air ratio is generated by at least
two duplex fuel nozzles (e.g., fuel mini-nozzles 13) disposed on either side
of a top center position of a combustor and a low fuel-air ratio is generated
by at least two simplex fuel nozzles (e.g., primary fuel nozzles 8) disposed
on either side of the bottom center position of the combustor.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in finding
that claim 8 is anticipated by Von Der Bank. We do not sustain the rejection
of claim 8, or of claims 9 and 10 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Von Der Bank.
5
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
Re} ections II and III
Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Von Der Bank and Howell, and claims 14--18 and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Von Der Bank, Howell, and
Goldberg. Final Act. 9-12. The rejections of these claims rely on the
Examiner's inadequately supported finding that Von Der Bank discloses two
nozzles with a high fuel-air ratio at the top dead center of a combustor and
two nozzles with a low fuel-air ratio at a bottom dead center of a combustor.
Id. at 9-11. The Examiner does not adequately explain how Howell or
Goldberg cures this underlying deficiency in Von Der Bank. Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner's
rejections of: claims 11-13 as unpatentable over Von Der Bank and Howell;
and claims 14--18 and 20 as unpatentable over Von Der Bank, Howell, and
Goldberg.
Rejection IV
Claims 1 and 6
Appellant argues claims 1 and 6 as a group. Appeal Br. 7-8. We
select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claim 6 stands or falls
therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Goldberg teaches most of the limitations of
independent claim 1, but acknowledges that "Goldberg does not teach that
the duplex nozzles are arranged on each side of top center of a combustor."
Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds that Howell teaches "at least two of the
main nozzles (nozzles 50 in [F]igure 5 below) are on either side of the top-
center." Id. at 4. The Examiner's annotated version of Howell's Figure 5
(id. at 5) is reproduced below.
6
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
Figure 5 of Howell
Annotated Figure 5 shown above depicts a schematic representation
of a combustor of a gas turbine engine. Howell 2 :48-51. The annotated
version includes a dashed line indicating two sides of the combustor and
notations with arrows illustrating the features that the Examiner has
identified as "main nozzles" and "pilot nozzle[s]." Final Act. 4--5.
Appellant argues that "Howell does not disclose duplex fuel injectors
or a configuration or orientation of duplex fuel injectors." Appeal Br. 7. We
find this argument unpersuasive in that the Examiner is not relying on
Howell for teaching duplex fuel injectors, but for the more general teaching
of how two different types of nozzles may be arranged around a
circumference of a combustor. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Howell 6:66-7:3, Fig.
5); see also Howell 4:62---66 ("By introducing both main and pilot fuel
injectors 50,[]52 the two types of fuel injectors may be different from each
[other] and specifically tailored for maximizing combustor performance at
idle and above, as well as maximizing combustor performance during
starting acceleration to idle.").
Appellant also argues that "Howell teaches away from the use of
duplex fuel injectors because such injectors are more complex and require a
powerful fuel pump." Reply Br. 4 (citing Howell 2:5-17); see also Appeal
Br. 7. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that
7
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
Goldberg "teach[ es] the structure of the simplex and duplex fuel nozzles"
(Ans. 3), and relies on Howell only "for teaching the configuration of
[different] fuel nozzles about the annular combustor, and not the structure of
the two types of fuel nozzles being used" (id.). Merely because Howell
offers a different solution of arranging main fuel injectors that preferably
comprise airblast-atomizing injectors and pilot fuel injectors that preferably
comprise fuel-pressure atomizing injectors (Howell 4:62-5:33) does not
teach away from Goldberg's simplex and duplex fuel nozzles. We do not
find any disclosure in Howell criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise
discouraging the modification proposed in the rejection (i.e., a proposed
arrangement of Goldberg's simplex and duplex fuel nozzles around the
circumference of the combustor).
Appellant further argues that "the proposed modification of Goldberg
to utilize the fuel injector configuration and orientation disclosed in Howell
would eliminate the need for duplex injectors and therefore completely
change the principle of operation of Goldberg." Appeal Br. 8. We do not
find this argument persuasive in that it fails to address the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner which is not based on modifying Goldberg to
remove its simplex and duplex injectors, but merely providing its different
simplex and duplex injectors in a particular orientation or configuration.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 is rendered obvious by the
combination of Goldberg and Howell. We sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claim 6 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Goldberg and Howell.
8
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
Claims 2 and 21
Appellant relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found
unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1 as the basis for seeking
reversal of the rejection of claims 2 and 21. Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goldberg and Howell.
Claims 3 and 4
Dependent claims 3 and 4 recite that at least one of the plurality of
duplex nozzles are arranged adjacent to (claim 3) or opposite (claim 4) a fuel
igniter. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Howell
teaches arranging two different types of fuel nozzles around a central axis,
wherein one of the fuel nozzles 50 is circumferentially adjacent igniter 58
and one of the nozzles is circumferentially opposite igniter 58. Final Act. 5-
6 ( citing Howell 4:24--29). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious "to modify the invention of Goldberg in view of Howell with the
igniter of Howell, in order to produce the initial spark for combustion during
the starting sequence for the engine." Id. at 6 ( citing Howell 7 :31-3 6).
Appellant argues that "Howell does not disclose duplex nozzles," let
alone that duplex nozzles be arranged adjacent to or opposite a fuel igniter.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that "Howell cannot teach a position of a
duplex nozzle." Id. We do not find this argument persuasive in that the
Examiner is relying on Goldberg, not Howell, for duplex nozzles, and is
relying on Howell merely for its teachings of a fuel igniter and that any of
two different nozzles can be arranged adjacent to or opposite from a fuel
igniter.
9
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the subject matter of claims 3 and 4 is rendered obvious by
the combination of Goldberg and Howell. We sustain the rejection of claims
3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldberg and
Howell.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites that "simplex nozzles are arranged about a
longitudinal axis of the engine and ... simplex nozzles [are] arranged on
either side of a bottom center position relative to the longitudinal axis of the
engine." Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner acknowledges that
"Goldberg does not teach that ... the simplex nozzles are arranged on either
side of bottom center." Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Howell
teaches "two of the pilot nozzles (nozzles 52 in [F]igure 5 below) are on
either side of the bottom-center." Id. The Examiner takes the position that
"[t]he term 'arranged on either side' does not define the proximity of the
simplex nozzles to the bottom center position, only that the nozzles are
positioned on the left and right side of the combustor" (Ans. 4) and "[a]ll
nozzles on the left side of the combustor in [F]igure 5 of Howell, including
the left most pilot nozzle" of the annotated version and "all nozzles on the
right side of the combustor, including the nozzle labeled 52 in [F]igure 5 of
Howell, are arranged on the other side of the bottom center position" (id. at
3--4).
Appellant argues that "the Examiner is reading both the top center
position where the main injectors are located and the bottom center position
as the same feature." Appeal Br. 9. Appellant maintains that "Figure 5 of
Howell would not be understood by one skilled in the art as disclosing pilot
10
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
nozzles on either side of a bottom center position" because "[ e ]ven a reading
using a broadest reasonable interpretation cannot be so broad as to enable a
fair reading that both a top center and bottom center are the same thing." Id.
Although we appreciate the fact that Howell's pilot nozzles 52 identified by
the Examiner could be considered to be arranged both on either side of a top
center position and on either side of a bottom center position relative to a
longitudinal axis of the engine, we do not agree that the Examiner is
improperly reading the same position as both the top center and bottom
center. Rather, we consider the Examiner to be viewing different areas as
the top center position and bottom center position, respectively; however,
because the claim is drafted broadly, nozzles in similar positions around the
circumference satisfy both limitations of being positioned on either side of a
top center position and being arranged on either side of a bottom center
position.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the subject matter of claim 7 is rendered obvious by the
combination of Goldberg and Howell. We sustain the rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldberg and Howell.
Rejection V
In contesting the rejection of dependent claim 5, Appellant relies on
the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection
with independent claim 1 as the basis for seeking reversal of the rejection of
claim 5. Appeal Br. 10. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above
in connection with the rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Goldberg, Howell, and
Runkle.
11
Appeal2017-005875
Application 13/832,507
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Von Der Bank is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Von Der Bank and Howell is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 14--18 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Von Der Bank, Howell, and Goldberg
is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Goldberg and Howell is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goldberg, Howell, and Runkle 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-IN-PART
12