Ex Parte RisingDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 201311454698 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/454,698 06/16/2006 Bruce W. Rising 2006P01105US 7691 7590 05/10/2013 Siemens Corporation Intellectual Property Department 170 Wood Avenue South Iselin, NJ 08830 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANDREW H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRUCE W. RISING ____________________ Appeal 2011-004696 Application 11/454,698 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Bruce W. Rising (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-004696 Application 11/454,698 2 The claims relate to combustion apparatus and methods using a pilot fuel selected for reduced emissions. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of combusting fuel, the method comprising: premixing a primary fuel with air in a premixing stage to produce an air/fuel premix; burning the air/fuel premix in a primary combustion zone of a combustor; diffusing a second fuel into a pilot combustion zone of the combustor, wherein the second fuel is a fuel different from the primary fuel and is selected to produce a lower emission in a diffusion burn than would be achieved in a diffusion burn of the primary fuel in the pilot combustion zone; and burning the diffused second fuel in the pilot combustion zone simultaneously with the burning of the air/fuel premix in the primary combustion zone. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Jeroszko Rajput Henderson Hums Chung Staroselsky Olsvik US 3,973,390 US 5,404,711 US 5,752,489 US 5,946,917 US 6,422,858 B1 US 7,041,154 B2 US 7,168,488 B2 Aug. 10, 1976 Apr. 11, 1995 May 19, 1998 Sep. 7, 1999 Jul. 23, 2002 May 9, 2006 Jan. 30, 2007 Noboru JP 2004225546 Aug. 12, 2004 REJECTIONS Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 10, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rajput and Henderson. Ans. 4-5. Appeal 2011-004696 Application 11/454,698 3 2. Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rajput, Henderson, and Chung. Ans. 5-6. 3. Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rajput, Henderson, Staroselsky, and Jeroszko. Ans. 6. 4. Claims 4, 6-9, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rajput, Henderson, Staroselsky, Jeroszko, Olsvik, Noboru, and Hums. Ans. 7-8. 5. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rajput, Henderson, Staroselsky, Jeroszko, Olsvik, Noboru, Hums, and Chung. Ans. 8-9. OPINION Obviousness of claims 1, 10, 11, and 15 over Rajput and Henderson 1. Claims 1 and 10 Appellant contends that Rajput fails to describe a method in which a second fuel is combusted using a diffusion burn. App. Br. 6. Appellant argues that, by contrast, Rajput prevents the pilot fuel from combusting in “a diffusion burn by ‘violently’ mixing the pilot fuel with air.” Id. The Examiner recognizes that a “‘diffusion burn’ carries a special meaning in the art.” Ans. 10. However, the Examiner determines that the recitation of “diffusing a second fuel into a pilot combustion zone” does not limit claim 1 to combusting the second (pilot) fuel in a diffusion burn. Id. at 10-11. According to the Examiner, claim 1 merely requires diffusing the second (pilot) fuel in a generic sense. Id. The Examiner finds that Rajput diffuses, in this generic sense, a pilot fuel because “the pilot fuel ‘pours out’ of the injector and spreads freely.” Id. 11. Appeal 2011-004696 Application 11/454,698 4 Appellant responds that claim 1 requires combusting the second fuel via a diffusion burn, relying on the following language in claim 1: “‘diffusing a second fuel into a pilot combustion zone ...’ The second fuel is selected for ‘lower emission in a diffusion burn ...’ ‘burning the diffused second fuel in the pilot combustion zone ...’” Reply Br. 2. The Specification supports Appellant’s interpretation of claim 1 by explaining, for example, that the invention relates to “dry low NOx combustor designs … with a diffusion pilot flame” (Spec., 1:5-6) and that the “second fuel type is different than the primary fuel 30 and is selected to provide a stable diffusion flame.” (Spec., 3: 3-4); see also App. Br. 3 (identifiying this portion of the Specification as the claimed subject matter). Our own review of the Specification reveals no description of a method in which the second fuel is not combusted via a diffusion burn. We therefore conclude that claim 1 requires combusting the second fuel using a diffusion burn. Because the Examiner makes no finding that the combination of Rajput or Henderson describes combusting the second fuel using a diffusion burn, we reverse the rejection under § 103(a) of independent claim 1 and its dependent claim 10. 2. Claims 11 and 15 Independent claim 11 recites a combustion apparatus that is significantly different in scope from the method of combusting fuel recited in independent claim 1. However, the Examiner addresses the subject matter of the method of claim 1 and never expressly identifies how the combination of Rajput and Henderson teaches each element of the apparatus of claim 11. See Ans. 4-5. For example, the Examiner fails to identify any teaching in Rajput or Henderson of using a “pilot fuel oxygenate” as recited in claim 11. Appeal 2011-004696 Application 11/454,698 5 For at least this reason, we conclude that the Examiner has not ascertained the differences between the prior art and claim 11 as required under Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 38 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). Moreover, “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory 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). “To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). Appellant contends that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 11 by broadly interpreting “fuel oxygenate” to encompass fuels into which oxygen has dissolved rather than fuels that include oxygen as an element of their chemical structure. App. Br. 5. Appellant argues that the Specification defines by example “fuel oxygenate” to refer to a chemical compound that includes oxygen as part of its chemical structure. Id. (citing Spec. 2:15-16, 3: 14-15). Appellant also contends that a skilled artisan understands “fuel oxygenate” in the same manner. App. Br. 5 (citing Wikipedia). The Examiner finds that “oxygenated fuel” has two well-known meanings in the art, including liquid fuel into which oxygen has dissolved. Ans. 9 (citing US 6,315,815 B1; iss. Nov. 13, 2001, to Spadaccini, 5:37-47). Appellant responds arguing that Spadaccini never explicitly defines “oxygenated fuel.” Reply Br. 2. Based on our own review of Spadaccini, we agree with Appellant. Spadaccini describes an apparatus for removing dissolved oxygen from liquid fuels without ever characterizing such fuels as being a “fuel oxygenate.” See, e.g., Spadaccini, col. 1, ll. 9-16, col. 2, ll. 19- 22, col. 5, ll. 37-47. Appeal 2011-004696 Application 11/454,698 6 For the reasons expressed above, we conclude that the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that the combination of Rajput and Henderson teaches every element of the subject matter of claim 11. We therefore reverse the rejection of independent claim 11 and its dependent claim 15. Obviousness of claims 2 and 12 over Rajput, Henderson, and Chung Claim 2 depends upon claim 1, and claim 12 depends upon claim 11. The Examiner relies upon Chung to teach that “the second fuel is selected to have a lower diffusion burning temperature than the primary fuel.” Ans. 5. However, Chung does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 that we describe above. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 2 and 12 under § 103(a). Obviousness of claims 3 and 5 over Rajput, Henderson, Staroselsky, and Jeroszko Claims 3 and 5 depend upon claim 1. Neither Staroselsky nor Jeroszko cures the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that we describe above. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 5 under § 103(a). Obviousness of claims 4, 6-9, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 over Rajput, Henderson, Staroselsky, Jeroszko, Olsvik, Noboru, and Hums 1. Claims 4 and 6-9 Claims 4 and 6-9 depend upon claim 1. None of Staroselsky, Jeroszko, Olsvik, Noboru, and Hums cures the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that we describe above. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 4 and 6-9 under § 103(a). Appeal 2011-004696 Application 11/454,698 7 2. Claims 13 and 14 Claims 13 and 14 depend upon claim 11. None of Staroselsky, Jeroszko, Olsvik, Noboru, and Hums cures the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 11 that we describe above. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under § 103(a). 3. Claims 16-18 and 20 Claim 16 is an independent claim and recites a combustion apparatus in terms that vary significantly from those recited in claim 1 as a method of combusting fuel. Nonetheless, the Examiner’s rejection applies the teachings of Rajput, Henderson, Staroselsky, and Jeroszko “as applied to claim 3” (a method claim that depends upon claim 1) and further relies upon Olsvik, Noboru, and Hums for teachings not related to subject matter recited in claim 16. Ans. 7. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 is ultimately based on rationale and findings made with respect to claim 1. Because of the differences in scope between claims 1 and 16, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to ascertain the differences between the prior art and claim 16 as required under Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 38 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). Claim 16 recites “a pilot fuel element in fluid communication with a diffusion nozzle for delivering a pilot fuel diffusion into fuel pilot combustion zone.” We conclude that claim 16 is thus limited to apparatus that deliver pilot fuel into the pilot combustion zone for a diffusion burn. Appellant has argued that Rajput does not describe an apparatus that delivers a pilot fuel diffusion into the pilot fuel combustion zone for a diffusion burn. App. Br. 5-6. We agree with Appellant for the reasons expressed above in our discussion of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner makes no finding Appeal 2011-004696 Application 11/454,698 8 that the combination of Rajput or Henderson describes an apparatus that delivers a pilot fuel diffusion into the pilot combustion zone for a diffusion burn. We therefore, reverse the rejection under § 103(a) of independent claim 16 and its respective dependent claims 17, 18, and 20. Obviousness of claim 19 over Rajput, Henderson, Staroselsky, Jeroszko, Olsvik, Noboru, Hums, and Chung Claim 19 depends upon claim 16 and recites that the reformer produces “a pilot fuel oxygenate.” The Examiner relies upon Chung to teach that “the second fuel is selected to have a lower diffusion burning temperature than the primary fuel.” Ans. 8. However, Chung does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 16 that we describe above. Appellant argues that none of the references of record describe the use of a fuel oxygenate as a pilot fuel. App. Br. 5. We agree for the reasons expressed above in connection with claim 11. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 19 under § 103(a). DECISION For the reasons stated above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-20. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation