Ex Parte Loebig et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 2009

10295402 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES CARL LOEBIG and BAILY RAMACHANDRA VITTAL
____________________

Appeal 2009-002019
Application 10/295,402
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided:1 June 9, 2009
____________________

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Before: WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR and
STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE, III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-002019
Application 10/295,402

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 21-26 and 28-31. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine having a
compressor and effervescent atomizer. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

1. An apparatus, comprising:
a gas turbine engine compressor having a compressor
inlet; and
at least one effervescent atomizer having an atomizer
outlet in fluid communication with said compressor inlet.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

Jordan US 2,686,631 Aug. 17, 1954
Munk US 4,702,074 Oct. 27, 1987
Hines US 6,012,279 Jan. 11, 2000
Sulzer CH 2526152 Oct. 16, 1948

Chen, S.K., Lefebvre, A.H., and Rollbuhlert, J., Influence of Ambient
Air Pressure on Effervescent Atomization, J. PROPULSION & POWER, vol. 9,
no. 1 (Jan-Feb. 1993), pp. 10-15
Whitlow, J.D. and Lefebvre, A.H., Effervescent Atomizer Operation
and Spray Characteristics, ATOMIZATION & SPRAYS, vol.3 (1993), pp. 137-
155.
Appeal 2009-002019
Application 10/295,402

3
Lund, M.T., Sojka, P.E., Lefebvre, A.H., and Gosselin, P.G.
Effervescent Atomization at Low Mass Flow Rates Part I: The Influence of
Surface Tension, ATOMIZATION & SPRAYS, vol.3 (1993), pp.77-89.

The above three papers are all authored or coauthored by A. H.
Lefebvre and are collectively referred to as the Lefebvre papers. Ans. 3.

Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21-26, 28, 30 and 31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Munk in view of
the Lefebvre papers. Ans. 4.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 21-26 and 28-31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sulzer in view of in view
of the Lefebvre papers. Ans. 6.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 21-26 and 28-31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of the
Lefebvre papers. Ans. 8.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 21-26 and 28-31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hines in view of the
Lefebvre papers. Ans. 10.
ISSUE
Appellants repeat substantially the same arguments for each of the
above rejections. App. Br. 10-43. In each case the claims are argued as a
group. App. Br. 11, 19, 27, 35. We select claim 1 as the representative claim,
and claims 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 21-26, 28-31 stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Examiner contends, and Appellants do not

2 References are made to the translation entered into the record Apr. 4, 2007.
Appeal 2009-002019
Application 10/295,402

4
contest, that each of Jordan, Munk, Hines and Sulzer teach gas turbines
having coolant injection systems at the compressor inlet. Ans. 4-5, 6, 8, 10.
The Examiner further contends, and Appellants do not contest, that the
Lefebvre papers disclose the structure of the effervescent atomizer recited in
the claims on appeal. Ans. 13. Appellants contend that the Lefebvre papers
do not suggest using effervescent atomizers to inject liquid into a
compressor inlet in order to boost power. App. Br. 15, 23, 31, 40. Appellants
further contend that the Examiner has not provided any rationale for the
Examiner’s proposed combination. App. Br. 18, 26, 34, 42-43. In light of
these contentions we must determine:
Have the Appellants established that the Examiner erred by
concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jordan discloses a mechanism for injecting a coolant liquid into the
compressor intake of a gas turbine engine in order to improve the
efficiency and power output of the engine. Col. 1, ll. 4-7. In order to
achieve this improvement Jordan mixes air with liquid, such as water or
water and alcohol to produce an atomized spray released into the intake
duct 14 of the compressor 16 of gas turbine engine 10. Col. 2, ll. 43-48;
col. 3, ll. 55-59; col. 4, ll. 20-25.
2. Munk recognizes that it is well-known in the art that controlled injection
of water into a combustion engine can increase the operating efficiency
and reduce the noxious emissions in the exhaust. Col. 1, ll. 31-35. In the
embodiment depicted in figure 1, Munk discloses fogging subsystem
Appeal 2009-002019
Application 10/295,402

5
200, which releases water droplets having a size of the order of 10
microns or less that readily evaporate into the path of air that is input into
the compressor 110 of a combustion turbine. Col. 4, ll. 28-42; fig. 1.
3. Hines recognizes that it is advantageous to utilize water spray injection at
the inlet of a compressor in order to increase the power output of a gas
turbine engine. Col. 3, ll. 27-52. The embodiment depicted in figure 1 of
Hines discloses water injection apparatus 24 at the inlet of compressor 14
of gas turbine engine 10.
4. Sulzer discloses a method for supplying finely atomized cooling water
into the air to be compressed in a gas turbine with the aid of air that is
supplied under elevated pressure. P. 1-2.
5. The Lefebvre papers teach an improved method of atomization,
effervescent atomization, which can achieve good atomization at very
low injection pressures and air/liquid mass ratios independent of the exit-
orifice diameter of the atomizer. J. PROPULSION & POWER, vol. 9, no. 1 p.
10; ATOMIZATION & SPRAYS, vol. 3, p. 137.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any
prima facie conclusion of obviousness. The key to supporting any prima
facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear
articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been
obvious. The Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 should be made explicit. The Federal Circuit has stated that
“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
Appeal 2009-002019
Application 10/295,402

6
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550
U.S. at 418.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. A prima facie conclusion of obviousness may be
supported by a showing that the claims are directed to a process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter already known in the prior art that is
altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, and such modification yields a predictable result. See id. (citing United
States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40). The Court further stated that:
[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.

KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. When considering obviousness of a
combination of known elements, the operative question is thus “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements
according to their established functions.” Id.

ANALYSIS
Each of Jordan, Munk, Hines and Sulzer discloses a gas turbine
engine having a compressor and an atomizer or similar device in fluid
communication with the compressor inlet. Facts 1-4. The fact that the
Lefebvre papers do not suggest using effervescent atomizers to inject liquid
into a compressor inlet (App. Br. 15, 23, 31, 40) does not preclude the
Appeal 2009-002019
Application 10/295,402

7
Examiner from concluding that it would have been obvious to do so. Since
each of the primary references already teaches that the atomizer should be
located at the inlet of the compressor, it is not necessary for the Lefebvre
papers to also teach placing the atomizer at this location in order to render
the subject matter of claim 1 obvious over a combination of the Lefebvre
papers with any one of Jordan, Munk, Hines or Sulzer. Nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Lefebvre papers provide several reasons for the desirability of
replacing atomizers with effervescent atomizers. Ans. 14-15; See Fact 5;
Contra App. Br. 18, 26, 34, 42-43. Using the effervescent atomizers of
Lefebvre in place of the atomizers or similar structures of Jordan, Munk,
Hines and Sulzer amounts to simple substitution of known elements with the
predictable result of achieving good atomization at low injection pressures
and air/liquid mass ratios independent of the exit-orifice diameter (see Fact
5) and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, attempting to implement one particular known atomizer, such
as the effervescent atomizer disclosed in the Lefebvre papers, amounts to
choosing from a finite number of available atomizers which would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art.
The discussion of effervescent atomizers in the Journal of Propulsion
and Power would have provided a reasonable expectation that the
effervescent atomizers were suitable for use in the turbine systems of Jordan,
Munk, Hines and Sulzer. Absolute predictability that the substitution will be
Appeal 2009-002019
Application 10/295,402

8
successful is not required; all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success. See In re O'Farrell 853 F.2d 894, 903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not established that the
Examiner erred by concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8,
10, 12-14, 16, 18, 21-26 and 28-31 are 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)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

vsh

KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
ONE INDIANA SQUARE
SUITE 2800
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-2079