Ex Parte Scarinci

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2014

11257264 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS SCARINCI
____________________

Appeal 2011-012120
Application 11/257,264
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and NEIL T. POWELL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22. App. Br. 2. Claims 10 and 21 are cancelled. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-012120
Application 11/257,264

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, 15, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A method comprising:
increasing the pressure of a working fluid within a
compressor of a gas turbine engine;
introducing a fuel into the working fluid after said
increasing to define a fuel and working fluid mixture;
separating the fuel and working fluid mixture into at least
two distinct and separate fuel and working fluid mixture
streams; and
delivering one of the at least two distinct and separate
fuel and working fluid mixture streams to a first location within
a combustion chamber and another of the at least two distinct
and separate fuel and working fluid mixture streams to a second
location within the combustion chamber, wherein the time to
deliver the fuel and working fluid mixture stream to the first
location is different than the time to deliver the fuel and
working fluid mixture stream to the second location.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Takahara (US 5,450,725; iss. Sep. 19, 1995).
Claims 8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahara and Willis (US 6,412,282 B1; iss. Jul. 2, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, and 22 as anticipated by Takahara
Appellant argues claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, and 22 as a group and argues
claim 7 separately. App. Br. 6-18. We select claim 1 as representative of
the group and address claim 7 separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011). Claims 2-6, 11-13, and 22 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2011-012120
Application 11/257,264

3
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, and 22
The Examiner found that Takahara discloses a method, as recited in
claim 1, including separating the fuel and working fluid mixture into at least
two distinct and separate fuel and working fluid mixture streams where duct
55 splits into three different delivery ducts and ports 56 as shown in Figure
2. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that Takahara discloses delivery of one of
the at least two distinct and separate fuel and working fluid mixture streams
to a first location in the combustion chamber at a different time than delivery
of another of the at least two distinct and separate fuel and working fluid
mixture streams to a second location in the combustion chamber because the
injection ports 56 are located at three different axial locations along the duct
55 and therefore, the downstream distances between the three injector ports
56 are different and will have a different phase relationship. Ans. 4, 15-16.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of Takahara as
including only one configuration of the pre-mixture pipes or ducts 55 fails to
suggest that other alternatives are just as likely. App. Br. 8. Appellant also
asserts that Takahara can be interpreted to disclose multiple variations of
fuel timing, including timing that would result in identically-timed delivery
of a fuel and working fluid mixture from the pre-mixture pipes or ducts.
App. Br. 8, 12-14. Appellant also asserts that Takahara does not disclose the
specifics of a relative cross sectional area of the branches and thus does not
disclose whether the time to deliver the fuel and fluid mixture to different
locations is the same or different. App. Br. 9. Appellant further argues that
the two-dimensional depiction in Takahara fails to account for the possibility
that the branches of the pre-mixture pipes/duct 55 flare or taper in a
circumferential direction to provide for different cross sectional geometries
Appeal 2011-012120
Application 11/257,264

4
leading up to the fuel injection ports 56 of the pre-mixture pipes/duct 55.
App. Br. 10. Appellant also contends that the apparent cutaway, two-
dimensional representation of pre-mixture pipes/duct 55 in Figure 2 of
Takahara does not disclose the actual cross sectional area of the pre-mixture
pipes/duct 55, or the circumferential reach of the pre-mixture pipes/duct 55.
App. Br. 10-11.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
findings. The Examiner had a sound basis for finding that Takahara delivers
one of at least two fuel and working fluid mixture streams to a first location
in a combustion chamber at a different time than Takahara delivers another
of at least two fuel and working fluid mixture streams to a second location in
a combustion chamber. Appellant discloses that the difference in time of
delivering the two streams to the first and second locations of a combustion
chamber is effected by having one stream delivered downstream from the
other. Spec. 9, ll. 12 to Spec. 10, l. 5; fig. 2. In the same manner, Takahara
discloses such an arrangement where branch ducts 56, 56, 56 are located
axially downstream from one another along pre-mixture pipe 55 to deliver a
fuel and working fluid mixture to different locations 26, 27 of a combustion
chamber. Takahara, fig. 2. Takahara describes Figure 2 as a longitudinal
sectional view of a gas turbine combustor. Takahara, col. 7, ll. 3-5. As
such, the disclosed embodiment of Takahara will deliver the streams to the
discharge locations at different times. We sustain the rejection of claims 1-
6, 9, 11-13, and 22.
Claim 7
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 7 is improper for reasons
similar to those given supra for Takahara including an alleged lack of
Appeal 2011-012120
Application 11/257,264

5
information as to the precise geometry of the pre-mixture pipes 55. See
App. Br. 14-15. Appellant also argues the Examiner apparently refused to
consider a functional claim limitation regarding the travel time of the fuel
and working fluid mixture through the claimed apparatus to the first and
second locations. App. Br. 15-17. These arguments are not persuasive in
view of the Examiner’s finding that Takahara discloses the claimed structure
and this structure inherently has the ability to deliver the fuel and working
fluid mixture to the first location and second locations at different times.
Ans. 6-7. We agree with the Examiner’s findings in this regard for the
reasons set forth supra for claim 1. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade
us that Takahara’s structure is not capable of meeting this limitation for the
reasons set forth supra for claim 1. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 14-20 as unpatentable over Takahara and Willis
Claims 15 and 19
Appellant argues that the rejection of independent claims 15 and 19
should be withdrawn because the Examiner assumes that the pre-mixture
ducts 55 and fuel injection ports 56 have only one possible configuration
that is inherent even though Takahara is silent as to the configuration. App.
Br. 17. Appellant also argues that Takahara fails to disclose the limitation
“wherein the residence time of the portion of the second fuel and air mixture
within said first branch duct is not equal to the residence time of the another
portion of the second fuel and air mixture within said second branch duct” as
recited in claim 15 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 7. App. Br. 18.
Appellant also asserts that Takahara fails to disclose the limitation “wherein
the delivery of the fuel and air mixture through each of said at least two
Appeal 2011-012120
Application 11/257,264

6
branches is phased to prevent the occurrence of fuel air ratio fluctuations” as
recited in claim 19 for the same reasons as provided for claims 1 and 7. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth
supra for claims 1 and 7. The Examiner had a sound basis for finding that
Takahara discloses the claimed structure including ducts that deliver the two
streams to the first and second locations of a combustion chamber by having
one stream delivered downstream of the other in the same manner disclosed
in Appellant’s Specification as effecting different residence and delivery
times for the fuel and air mixture to the combustion chamber. Ans. 11-12,
13-14. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in those findings
of the Examiner or that Takahara is not capable of meeting these limitations.
We sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 19.
Claims 8, 14, 16-18, and 20
Appellant argues that claims 8, 14, 16-18, and 20 are allowable due to
their dependence from allowable independent claims. App. Br. 17. This
argument is not persuasive because we sustain the rejections of claims 7, 15,
and 19 from which claims 8, 14, 16-18, and 20 depend. We sustain the
rejection of claims 8, 14, 16-18, and 20.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
mls