Ex Parte Umeh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2014

11500087 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHUKWUELOKA OBIORA UMEH, JOEL MEIER HAYNES,
and JEFFREY SCOTT GOLDMEER
____________________

Appeal 2011-002006
Application 11/500,087
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002006
Application 11/500,087

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 12-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to combustion
dynamics and, more particularly, to combustion dynamics in gas turbine
combustors” (Spec., para. [0001]).
Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
12. A system for controlling combustion dynamics
comprising:
a combustor having a combustion chamber and an inlet
for feeding a fuel-air mixture into the combustion chamber;
a dome plate at an upstream end of the combustion
chamber;
a liner along a length of the combustion chamber; and
an actuator configured to control one or more
recirculating zones in the combustion chamber.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 12, 14, 15, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Grienche (US 6,263,663 B1, iss. Jul. 24, 2001).

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed May 10,
2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 25, 2010).
Appeal 2011-002006
Application 11/500,087

3
Claims 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Zwick (US 4, 138,842, iss. Feb. 13, 1979).
Claims 12, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Miyake (US 2004/0107701 A1, pub. Jun. 10, 2004).
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) anticipated by
Glezer (US 6,056,204, iss. May 2, 2000).2
Claims 12-14, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Vaught (US 4,050,240, iss. Sep. 27, 1977).
Claims 12, 16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Park (US 6,425,240 B1, iss. Jul. 30, 2002).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miyake and Glezer.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Miyake and Saddoughi (US 2006/0102800 A1, pub. May, 18, 2006).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 12 and 25 together (see, e.g.,
Br. 10-11). We select claim 1 as representative. Claim 25 stands or falls
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Glezer
(Br. 10-11).

2 We treat, as inadvertent error, the Examiner’s indication that claim 22 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Glezer in view of the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Miyake and Glezer.
Appeal 2011-002006
Application 11/500,087

4
Directing our attention to Figures 1B and 1C and column 14, lines 36-
57 of the reference, Appellants assert that Glezer discloses “a synthetic jet
actuator [element 10 in the figures] which has an air flow control mechanism
and can control the air entering inside the actuator or moving outside the
actuator” whereas “the present invention includes an actuator, which is used
to move the dome plates of the combustion chamber to control the one or
more recirculating zones and not the flow of air inside the combustion
chamber and therefore, regulating [sic] the combustion dynamics of the
combustion chamber” (Br. 11). Continuing, Appellants assert, “[t]hus,
Glezer et al. teaches controlling the flow of air entering inside and exiting
outside the synthetic jet actuator but does not teach or even suggest an
actuator configured to control one or more recirculating zones in a
combustion chamber as recited in independent claims 1 and 25” (id.).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because it is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 12 does not recite an
actuator configured to move the dome plate of a combustion chamber to
control one or more recirculating zones in the combustion chamber. Instead,
claim 12 merely recites “an actuator configured to control one or more
recirculating zones in the combustion chamber.”
The Examiner determined that Glezer discloses:
an actuator 10 (fig. 1) configured to control one or more
recirculation zones (fig. 3, within 126, col. 1, lines 19-25, “The
ability to manipulate and control the evolution of shear flows
has tremendous potential for influencing system performance in
diverse technology applications, including: mixing and
combustion process”) . . . .

Appeal 2011-002006
Application 11/500,087

5
(Ans. 17; see also Ans. 9). The Examiner also asserted that “controlling the
airflow to the combustion chamber will control the fuel/air ratio which will
also control the combustion temperature and pressure within the combustion
chamber” (Ans. 17-18). Appellants have presented no reasoning nor
technical arguments persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants are reminded that a statement that merely points out what a
claim recites, and asserts that corresponding elements are not found in the
prior art, is not a separate argument for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1356-1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board reasonably
interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art”).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Glezer. We also will
sustain the rejection of claim 25, which stands or fall with claim 12.3
Each of claims 13-24 depends from claim 1. Appellants do not
present any arguments for the separate patentability of the dependent claims.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 13-19, 23, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the rejection of claims 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

3 Our decision sustaining the rejection of claims 12 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Glezer is dispositive of the issues on appeal;
therefore, we do not consider Appellants’ remaining arguments.
Appeal 2011-002006
Application 11/500,087

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 12-19 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
llw