Ex Parte Tillman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2017

13237685 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)

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.
13/237,685 09/20/2011 Don Tillman H0030527 (002.4560) 6956
89955 7590 03/23/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
MEADE, LORNE EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DON TILLMAN
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
Technology Center 3700
Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—5, 7—13, 15, and 17—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant informs us that the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to gas turbine engines with convection shield
assemblies in the combustion sections thereof. Spec. 1; Appeal Br. 36
(Claims App.) Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A combustion section for a gas turbine engine,
comprising:
a first liner;
a second liner forming a combustion chamber with the first
liner, the combustion chamber configured to receive an air-fuel
mixture for combustion therein;
a first case circumscribing the first liner and forming a first
plenum with the first liner; and
a convection shield assembly positioned between the first
liner and the first case, wherein the first case is offset from the
convection shield assembly by a first distance, the first distance
being less than 0.1 inches.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Owner et al. US 2,670,600 Mar. 2, 1954
US 2,676,460 Apr. 27, 1954
US 2,702,454 Feb. 22, 1955
US 5,598,696 Feb. 4, 1997
US 6,622,383 B1 Sep. 23, 2003
US 7,500,364 B2 Mar. 10, 2009
US 2006/0245924 Al Nov. 2, 2006
US 2007/0180828 Al Aug. 9, 2007
Brown
Brown
Stotts
Moertle et al.
Schumacher et al.
Audeon et al.
Webb
Rohsenow, W.M., editor, Handbook of Heat Transfer, Third
Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1998, pp. 5.59 - 5.67.
2
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
Appellant relies on the Declaration of Don Tillman, the inventor,
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, dated Jan. 27, 2014.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—5, 7—10, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown ’454 and Rohsenow, or
alternatively, Brown ’454, Stotts, and Moertle.
2. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brown ’454, Rohsenow, and Fourier’s Law or
alternatively, Brown ’454, Stotts, Moertle, and Fourier’s Law.
3. Claims 11, 12, and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schumacher, Brown ’460, Stotts, and Moertle.
4. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schumacher, Brown ’460, Stotts, Moertle, and Owner.
5. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brown ’454, Rohsenow, Webb, and Audeon., or
alternatively, Brown ’454, Stotts, Moertle, Webb and Audeon.
OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant argues claims 1—3, 8—10, and 23 as a group. Appeal Br. 16.
We select claim 1 as representative, and the remaining claims stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant makes separate,
additional arguments in connection with claims 4, 7, 10, and 22.
The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 7—10, 22, and 23 as unpatentable
over Brown ’454 in light of Rohsenow. Final Act. 9—12. The Examiner
3
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
finds Brown ’454 shows the entire structure of claim 1, but does not show
spacing between a casing and a heat shield of 0.10 inches or less. Final Act.
10. The Examiner turns to Rohsenow for its equation relating the velocity
profile of a fluid flow between two parallel plates to the spacing between the
plates. Final Act. 10—11. The Examiner finds that this equation shows that
the spacing between the plates (and hence between the claimed heat shield
and first case) is a result effective variable that would be routinely
optimized. Final Act. 11—12. He further explains in the Answer that
Rohsenow describes the relationship between the velocity profile and heat
transfer properties. Ans. 9—10.
In response Appellant first contends that combining Brown ’454 with
Rohsenow is improper because Brown ’454 uses the passage between heat
shields 46, 54 and casing 8 to carry air to another part of Brown’s engine for
cooling purposes. Appeal Br. 17—18. Appellant argues that reducing this
passage height to 0.10 inches, as required by claim 1 (on which claims 2, 3,
8—10, and 23 depend, directly or indirectly), would “inhibit the cooling
flow” and cites MPEP 2143.01 to suggest that the proposed modification
would make Brown “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br.
18. Appellant relies on the Tillman Declaration and makes arguments based
on the equation from Rohsenow on which the Examiner relies. Appeal Br.
17-21.
Appellant makes additional arguments (sub headings 2 and 3, Appeal
Br. 18—21) challenging the use of Rohsenow’s equation as inappropriate in
the given engineering context (Appeal Br. 18—19); arguing that Rohsenow’s
equation is inapplicable because the “very small distance [ between the heat
shield and first case] would exponentially inhibit the function of transporting
4
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
fluid” (Appeal Br. 20); and arguing that the Examiner has failed to link the
velocity profile generated by Rohsenow’s equation to heat transfer (Appeal
Br. 21).
The Examiner responds to the first argument (Brown ’454 would no
longer work if modified as proposed) by considering and discounting the
Tillman Declaration. Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3. Treating the Tillman
Declaration as that of an expert, the Examiner considers two factors: first,
the declaration is given by a person with an interest in the outcome and
therefore subject to bias; and second, it is not supported by factual evidence
and so amounts to mere conclusory opinion. Final Act. 2—3, 6—9 (listing
opinions that are not supported by facts); Ans. 2—3, 16—18. In addition, the
Examiner includes calculations to show the Tillman Declaration to be
inaccurate in several respects. Final Act. 3—7; Ans. 18—19. The Examiner
does this by taking operating parameters from devices similar to that of
Brown ’454 such as temperature, pressure drop across the device, the known
properties of air, and the like to demonstrate that the assertions in the
Tillman Declaration were not only unsupported by any facts, but also likely
untrue.2 Final Act. 3—7; Ans. 18—19. Therefore, the Tillman Declaration
was not given much weight, if any.
Appellant’s first additional argument (sub heading 2) depends entirely
on the Tillman Declaration, which the Examiner found not persuasive (Ans.
2 The Examiner used these parameters to demonstrate both that air at 1000°F
would flow between plates 0.10 inches apart, and also that the flow would be
laminar. These findings support using the Rohsenow equation to show that
an art-recognized relationship of spacing between plates and heat transfer
between them. We note that Brown ’454 does not specify how much air
must pass between Brown’s heat shield and casing to be effective for
Brown’s purposes.
5
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
5) and contradicted by the Examiner’s findings concerning the flow in
Brown ’454 if modified as proposed. Ans. 5—6.
Appellant’s second additional argument (sub heading 3, Appeal Br.
19—21) challenges the Examiner’s calculations showing that Brown ’454, if
modified as proposed, would still allow air to flow between the heat shield
and the casing, and further that the flow would be laminar. Id. Appellant
argues that not only is the Examiner wrong, but the Rohsenow equation
teaches that the flow velocity is inversely proportional to the square of the
spacing between plates and so would “exponentially inhibit the function of
transporting fluid” at very small distances. Appeal Br. 20. In his Answer
the Examiner notes that Appellant has acknowledged that the spacing
between plates is a result-effective variable because it achieves a recognized
result. Ans. 6. The Examiner explains the basis for his fluid flow and
Reynolds number calculations (Ans. 6—8), explains the relationship between
the Nusselt number and fluid velocity, and so connects the Rohsenow
equation with heat transfer. Ans. 9—10.
Having reviewed the Tillman Declaration, we agree with the
Examiner that its conclusions are unsupported by fact and represent opinions
only. The Board has broad discretion as to the weight to be given
declarations offered in the course of prosecution, and it may properly decline
to accord weight to declaration statements unsupported by corroborating
documentation. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner listed the unsupported opinions in the Final Action, including
at pages 2—3 and 7—8, and we agree that the opinions in the Tillman
Declaration, particularly at paragraphs 11—15 and 17—19 are without factual
6
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
support.3 For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Examiner and give
little weight to the Tillman Declaration.
Appellant’s argument at sub heading 2 depends entirely on the
inventor’s declaration, and in view of our prior finding, fails to persuade us
of error.
Appellant’s argument at sub heading 3 (Appeal Br. 19-21) does not
persuade us the Examiner erred. After pointing out the mathematical
relationship between the velocity of fluid flowing between plates and the
spacing between the plates, Appellant concludes that “[t]o one skilled in the
art, this indicates that very small distances would exponentially inhibit the
function of transporting fluid.” Appeal Br. 20. Given that the viscosity
(which is temperature dependent) and pressure difference are also factors, it
is not at all clear that Appellant’s conclusion is supportable. Moreover, as
we pointed out above (fn. 2) Brown ’454 does not specify how much cooling
air is required. Even if the cooling air flow is “exponentially inhibited”, it
may well still be sufficient.4 Appellant has provided no evidence that would
support his implicit conclusion that in modified Brown ’454 the flow of
cooling air would be insufficient. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred.
3 Although we are inclined to agree that the Examiner’s calculations to
show the Tillman Declaration to be factually incorrect, we find no need to
resolve the question as the bias and lack of factual support lead us to give no
weight to the Tillman Declaration.
4 We note that the intensity of light falls off with the square of the distance
from the source, an exponential relationship, yet this does not prove
flashlights lack utility on a dark night.
7
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
Alternate Rejection 1
Appellant argues claims 1—3, 8—10, and 23 as a group. Appeal Br. 16.
We select claim 1 as representative, and the remaining claims stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant makes separate,
additional arguments in connection with claims 4, 7, 10, and 22.
In an alternative rejection of claims 1—5, 7—10, 22 and 23, the
Examiner finds these claims unpatentable over Brown ’454, Stotts, and
Moertle. Stotts and Moertle show heat shields for fuel nozzles in jet engine
plenums (Stotts, Abstract; Moertle, Abstract) with ambient temperatures
around 1000°F. Moertle 1:12—20. The shielded fuel nozzle should be kept
below 400°F (Stotts 1:24—33) or 300°F (Moertle 1:12—24). Stotts teaches
the gap between fuel nozzle and the shield can be between 0.010 and 0.015
inches. Final Act. 12, citing Stotts 4:1—20. Appellant argues Brown ’454
would not function as intended with such a narrow gap (Appeal Br. 21) and
that one of ordinary skill would not have looked to nozzle heat shields to
solve the problem of overheating engine casings because they shield
different components in different locations within the engine. As in
Appellant’s argument in connection with Rejection 1, the Tillman
Declaration was relied on to establish that Brown ’454 would not function if
modified as proposed.
The Examiner’s response reiterates that he has already established that
air would flow between two plates only 0.10 inches apart at temperatures
and pressure differences found in the devices like those for which
Appellant’s invention is to be used. Ans. 11. The Examiner finds both
Moertle and Stotts are devices for protecting structures from the heat of air
exiting the compressor section in jet engines. Ans. 11—13, citing Moertle
8
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
1:12—20 and comparing Stotts, Figure 1 to Moertle, Figures 1 and 2. Given
that Brown ’454, Moertle, and Stotts all teach the use of heat shields in gas
turbine combustion sections, it was entirely predictable that one would
obtain good results from applying the same shield technology to protecting
the first case from the temperatures in the plenum. Ans. 14—15, citing KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The Examiner concludes:
Appellant simply arranges old elements, i.e., gas turbine
combustion section outer case having a heat shield/convection
shield assembly inside the air plenum and offset a distance from
the outer case, with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform, i.e., outer case provided structural
containment for the pressurized air in the plenum and the heat
shield/convection shield assembly shielded the outer case from
the high temperature that resulted from combustion of fuel and
air in the combustion chamber of the combustion section, and
yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement,
i.e., the gas turbine outer case would have a lower surface
temperature than a similar gas turbine without the heat
shield/convection shield assembly inside the air plenum when
both gas turbines were operating under identical loads, therefore
the combination is obvious.
Ans. 15—16.
We agree with the Examiner. As discussed above, Appellant has not
established that Brown ’454 would not function if the spacing between heat
shield and casing were to be reduced to 0.10 inches. Brown ’454 does not
specify how much air needs to pass through its duct, and “exponential[]
inhibition]” does not mean that the remaining flow is inadequate for Brown
’454’s purpose. Appeal Br. 20. The suggestion that Stotts and Moertle do
not show heat shields used in plenums is fully refuted by the Examiner.
Ans. 11—13, citing Moertle 1:12—20 and comparing Stotts, Figure 1 to
Moertle, Figures 1 and 2. Moertle discloses the claimed spacing, and the use
9
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
of a heat shield to protect the casing achieves predictable results from the
use of well-known techniques. Appellant has not persuaded us of examiner
error in this alternate rejection of claims 1—3, 8—10, and 23.
Additional Arguments concerning Tillman Declaration
Appellant argues that the Tillman Declaration has not been given the
weight it deserves because the inventor (Tillman) is one of ordinary skill in
the art. Appeal Br. 22. Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s rebuttal to
the inventor’s declaration fails. Appeal Br. 22—23. We need not address
these arguments in detail because they do not alter our basis for discounting
the Tillman Declaration. The declaration remains devoid of factual support
for the conclusions it reaches. The declaration remains given by one with an
inherent interest in the outcome of this matter. For these reasons we are not
persuaded by the arguments of Appellant, which rely on this unsupported
declaration.
Dependent Claim 4
Appellant additionally argues that claim 4 is patentable because the
shields 54 and 56 in Brown ’454 are not “configured to substantially shield
the first case from the plenum air.” Appeal Br. 27, citing Appeal Br. 36
(Claims App.). Appellant points out that in Brown ’454 the space between
the shield and the first case is used to convey plenum air for cooling
purposes downstream. Appeal Br. 27. The Examiner’s response is that
Appellant did not claim that the first case was completely shielded from
plenum air. Ans. 27. Next, the Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claims 1 and 4 covers the space in Brown ’454 between the
outermost casing 8 and the shield 54 as a plenum. The fact that air is
admitted to that plenum only through holes 56 at the upstream end of shield
10
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
54 and through holes 58 at the downstream end of shield 54 means that,
between the two sets of holes, the case 8 is substantially shielded from
plenum air. We do not agree with the Examiner. In Brown ’454 air from
the compressor section (“plenum air”) is deliberately fed into a space
defined by the first case 8, and so the first case cannot be said to be
substantially shielded from plenum air. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 4, and claim 5 depending therefrom.5
Dependent Claim 7
Appellant makes a separate, additional argument for claim 7.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the claimed spacing between the shield
and the first case of 0.02 inches makes the distinction over Brown ’454 and
either Rohsenow or Stotts and Moertle that much clearer. Appeal Br. 27.
The Examiner responds that the claimed spacing is either an optimization of
Brown ’454 following the teachings of Rohsenow or specifically taught by
Stotts. Ans. 32—33 citing Stotts 4:1—19. We do not find Appellant’s terse
argument persuasive. Applicant’s Specification provides no rational
explanation for the particular spacing chosen or the range of spacings
chosen. Spec. 135. The spacing claimed in claims 1 and 7 appear therefore
to be little more than window dressing. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725
F.2d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner’s decision is supported by
“articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning,” In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 7.
5 In the event of further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to consider the applicability of the references cited in Rejection 3 to the
subject matter of claims 4 and 5.
11
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10 includes the limitation “wherein, during operation, the first
liner operates at a first temperature and the first case operates at a second
temperature, and wherein the convection shield assembly reduces convective
heat transfer between the first liner and the first case such that the second
temperature is at least 100°F less than the first temperature.” Appeal Br. 37
(Claims App.). Appellant argues that the structure of claim 1 enables the
function of claim 10, namely a temperature difference of at least 100°F.
Appeal Br. 27—28. The Examiner demonstrates in response that Stotts
teaches an offset of from 0.010 to 0.015 inches, which results in a
temperature difference of at least 600°F. Answer 37; Stotts 1:24—33. In
Moertle the temperature difference is approximately 700°F. Answer 37,
relying on Moertle 1:1—35 and Stotts, ibid. Thus both Stotts and Moertle
teach temperature differences that meet this claim limitation. The Examiner
also notes that the subject matter of claim 10 is an intended use (“during
operation”) and desired result (“such that...”). The Examiner finds: “The
structure of the applied prior art (Brown ‘454), being similar to the structure
of the present application, as claimed and disclosed, the two structures will
obviously function the same under similar circumstances.” Final Act. 15.
The Examiner’s findings are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). We agree with
the Examiner’s claim construction, and we note that Appellant is essentially
arguing that claim 10 is patentable for the same reasons argued in favor of
claim 1 ’s patentability, arguments we do not find persuasive as discussed
above. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
reasoning supporting the rejection of claim 10.
12
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
Dependent Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the convection
shield assembly is arranged such that any air between the convection shield
assembly and the first case is stationary.” Appeal Br. 40 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues that because the heat shields in Brown ’454 clearly
function as ducts, they cannot function in the claimed manner. Appeal Br.
28. The Examiner replies that “arranged such that” is not a positive
limitation since it only requires the ability to perform a function. Answer
38. The Examiner then finds that Brown ’454 would meet this limitation
when his device is not running. Id. We are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in giving such a narrow meaning to the claim. “Any air” cannot fairly
be read to exclude normal operation of the claimed device. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 22.6
Conclusion Rejection 1
The rejection of claims 1—3, 7—10, and 23 as unpatentable over Brown
’454 and Rohsenow, and alternatively over Brown ’454, Stotts, and Moertle
is sustained. The rejection of claims 4, 5, and 22 is reversed.
Rejection 2
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 adding “wherein a combination of the
convection shield assembly and the first case have a thermal resistance
approximately 2 orders of magnitude greater than the first case.” Appeal Br.
39 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects this claim on the same basis as
claim 1 with additional reliance on Fourier’s Law. Appellant argues that the
addition of Fourier’s Law (the substance of which Appellant does not
dispute) cannot cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br.
6 See footnote 4, supra.
13
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
29. In light of our findings above affirming the rejection of claim 1, we also
affirm the rejection of claim 21.
Rejection 3
Appellant argues claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 as a group. Appeal
Br. 29—32. We select claim 11 as representative, and the remaining claims
in this group stand or fall with claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
address the separate arguments raised by Appellant in support of dependent
claims 17 and 20, infra.
Independent claim 11 is generally similar to claim 1, but concludes
with the following limitation:
a convection shield assembly positioned between the first
combustion liner and turbine section and the first case, wherein
the first case is offset from the convection shield assembly by a
first distance, the first distance being less than 0.1 inches, and
wherein the convection shield assembly extends to a forward
position upstream of the outlet of the compressor section such
that the first plenum is fluidly isolated from the first case.
Appeal Br. 37—38 (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that “Schumacher
teaches an engine section comprising a compressor section with an outlet,
i.e., [a] ‘base device’, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an
‘improvement’.” Final Act. 20. The Examiner then notes features in claim
11 that are not found in Schumacher, namely a particular spacing between
heat shield and the engine casing and the location of the upstream end of the
heat shield. Id. The Examiner then finds that Brown ’460 discloses a heat
shield assembly 46, 48, 56 “positioned between the first combustion liner
and turbine section (8) and the first case (34).” Final Act. 20, citing Brown
’460 figures 1—5. In Brown ’460 the heat shield assembly 46, 48 is “closely
spaced” from the first case (34). Final Act. 20, citing Brown 2:54—3:8. The
14
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
Examiner relies on Stotts and Moertle, as he did in connection with claim 1,
for the particular spacing of the heat shield from the case. Final Act. 21.
The Examiner concludes:
Thus, improving a particular device (engine section comprising
a compressor section with an outlet) based upon the teachings of
such improvement in Stotts and Moertle would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., applying this
known "improvement" technique in the same manner to the
engine section comprising a compressor section with an outlet of
Schumacher, [in view of] Brown ‘460, and the results would
have been predictable and readily recognized, that offsetting the
convection/heat shield by a distance of less than 0.1 inches or
0.02 inches, would have insulated the first case from the high
temperatures in the plenum. KSR [Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.], 550
U.S. 398 (2007)[]; MPEP 2143(C).
Final Act. 21—22. The Examiner expands on this reasoning in his Answer,
where he points out that the fuel nozzles of Stotts and Moertle are mounted
to the first case with similar structures and at similar locations, and from this
finding the Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would
see that both Stotts and Moertle disclose heat shields positioned inside the
pressurized plenum where the temperature would be in the neighborhood of
1000°F. Final Act. 21; Ans. 42. Because both Stotts and Moertle require
protection from high temperatures and extend their heat shields along the
entire length of the nozzle where it is exposed to high temperatures, the
Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious “to extend the heat shield/convection shield assembly to a forward
position upstream of the outlet of the compressor section of Schumacher to
shield the entire axial length of the first case from the heat generated by
combustion in the combustion chamber.” Id. at 43.
15
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
Appellant argues that no reference discloses placing the heat shield
upstream of the compressor discharge and that Brown ’460 has air ducts that
cannot be reduced in size, as explained in the Tillman Declaration. Appeal
Br. 31. The Examiner answers that it is the teachings, not the embodiments,
of the prior art that are being combined, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Final Act. 7; Ans. 41. The Examiner reasons that one of
skill in the art would note that Stotts and Moertle each construct a heat
shield to cover the entirety of the article exposed to heat (Final Act. 7—8,
Ans. 42-43) and further that engine cases are made of metal, a material
known for its thermal conductivity (Ans. 43). From these facts, the
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious when adding Brown’s
heat shield to Schumacher to extend the heat shield to cover all the surfaces
exposed to compressed air temperatures. Ans. 43. Appellant’s Reply does
not contest these findings.
In Appellant’s second argument concerning Rejection 3 Appellant
argues, without citation to any part of the Brown ’460 specification or
figures, “the liners 46, 48 of Brown 460 are air passages for directing flow
to designated portions of the combustor.” Appeal Br. 31. This assertion
appears to be factually incorrect. There is no indication in Brown 460 that
the space between the heat shield 46, 48 and the engine case 34 is used as a
duct. Ans. 44-45 (“the Declaration of Don Tillman (sole inventor) and
Appellant’s arguments have both failed to provide any evidence of record
that the heat shields (46, 48) of Brown 460 had air flow passages as alleged
by Appellant.”) Appellant’s Reply does not address this fact finding, and we
agree with the Examiner that there is no deliberate air movement in the
space between the heat shield 46, 48 and engine case 34 of Brown 460 as
16
Appeal 2015-003595
Application 13/237,685
alleged by Appellant. Accordingly, we have not been apprised of error in
the rejection of claim 11 nor in the rejection of claims 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19.
Dependent claims 17 and 20
Appellant argues claims 17 and 20 separately (Appeal Br. 32), but the
arguments are based on the incorrect belief that Brown ’460 has a duct in the
space between the heat shield 46, 48 and engine case 34. Accordingly,
Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 17 and 20.
Rejections 4 and 5
Claims 13 and 23 depend from claims 11 and 1, respectively.
Appellant argues the rejection of these claims separately, arguing that the
additional references cited against the claims do not cure the deficiencies of
the rejections of claims 11 and 1. Appeal Br. 32—35. As we were not
persuaded of error in the rejections of claims 11 and 1, likewise we are not
persuaded of error in the rejections of claims 13 and 23.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, and 22
is reversed; the rejection of claims 1—3, 7—12, 15—21 and 23 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)(l)(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17