UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2021

2020005781 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2021)

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.
14/759,481 07/07/2015 Stephen K. Kramer 63117US02 (U420557US2) 6758
135291 7590 05/04/2021
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
FORD, RENE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN K. KRAMER
____________

Appeal 2020-005781
Application 14/759,481
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies United Technologies Corporation as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005781
Application 14/759,481

2
CLAIMS
Appellant’s “disclosure generally relates to nozzles and, more
specifically, to fuel nozzles of fuel injectors for gas turbine engines.” Spec.
¶ 2.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A fuel injector, comprising:
a nozzle having an outer wall defining a mixing chamber
having an outlet proximate a centerline of the nozzle;
a first fuel line in fluid communication with the mixing
chamber, the first fuel line terminating in a tangential fuel inlet
located in the outer wall; and
a second fuel line in fluid communication with the mixing
chamber, the second fuel line terminating in a radial fuel inlet
located in the outer wall, the radial fuel inlet being orthogonal
to the tangential fuel inlet.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).

REJECTION2
Claims 1–123 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2.

2 The rejection of claims 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite
has been withdrawn. Ans. 4; Final Act. 4.
3 In the Final Action, the rejection heading lists claims 1–13 as being
rejected under this ground, but the Final Action also indicates that claim 13
has been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 2. Accordingly, we treat
the listing of claim 13 in the rejection heading as a typographical error.
Appeal 2020-005781
Application 14/759,481

3
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites a fuel injector comprising, in part, “a first fuel line . . .
terminating in a tangential fuel inlet located in the outer wall,” and “a second
fuel line . . . terminating in a radial fuel inlet located in the outer wall, the
radial fuel inlet being orthogonal to the tangential fuel inlet.” Appeal Br. 14
(emphasis added). Independent claim 10 is directed to a combustor of a gas
turbine engine, and recites substantially this same language. Id. at 15–16.
The Examiner finds that the application does not provide written
description support for the above-italicized limitation in claims 1 and 10
(hereinafter, also “the contested limitation”). Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner
interprets the term “orthogonal” as having “the plane meaning of relating to,
consisting of, or involving right angles.” Id. at 3 (citing Collings English
Dictionary). The Examiner states, “[e]ssentially, the limitation requires the
radial fuel inlet be at 90 degrees to the tangential fuel inlet[,]” but finds that
the Specification does not explicitly teach or imply “the 90 degree angle,”
and “it is not inherent that a tangential fuel inlet is formed at 90 degrees to
the radial fuel inlet.” Id.
The Examiner also states, “Applicant may be relying on the drawings
for the precise measurement of 90 degrees, however the [S]pecification does
not disclose that the drawings are made to scale.” Final Act. 3. To the
contrary, the Examiner submits, paragraph 46 states, “‘[i]t should be
understood that the drawings are not necessarily to scale and that the
disclosed embodiments are sometimes illustrated diagrammatically and in
partial views.’” Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner also submits that
MPEP § 2125 states, “‘[w]hen the reference does not disclose that the
drawings are to scale and is silent as to the dimensions, arguments based on
Appeal 2020-005781
Application 14/759,481

4
measurement of the drawing features are of little value.’” Advisory Act.
(Cont. Sheet). Thus, the Examiner’s position is that using the term
“orthogonal” is equivalent to claiming a precise 90 degree angle formed
between components, but the application is silent with respect to an angular
relationship between the claim elements, and the drawings cannot be relied
upon for measurements because they are not disclosed as being to scale. Id.
In contrast, Appellant contends that Figures 3–7 illustrate the
contested limitation (Appeal Br. 4), and, in support, provides an annotated
version of Figure 6 (id. at 5) reproduced below.

The figure above is an annotated version of Figure 6 of the
application. Appellant contends that this figure shows the contested
limitation (Appeal Br. 5), and that one skilled in the art viewing Figure 6
would reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the contested
Appeal 2020-005781
Application 14/759,481

5
limitation (id. at 7). Appellant also contends that paragraph 46 of the
Specification does not preclude it from relying on Figures 3–7 as support for
the contested limitation. Id. at 6. Appellant points out that paragraph 52
states, “‘[a]s used herein, ‘tangential’ and ‘radial’ are used as directional
modifiers relative to the axial centerline 88.’” Id.
In response, the Examiner provides and annotates a different figure,
which is reproduced below. Ans. 6.

Appeal 2020-005781
Application 14/759,481

6
The figure above is the Examiner’s annotated figure showing “a
circular wall assembly as in the disclosed invention.” Ans. 5. According to
the Examiner, this figure shows:
it is possible to have a “tangential fuel inlet” and a “radial fuel
inlet” that are formed on tangential and radial lines,
respectively, of a circular wall assembly as in the disclosed
invention and where the two inlets (‘tangential inlet A’ and
‘radial inlet’ of the sketch) make contact with each other as
shown in instant application Fig. 6, when one inlet is not
orthogonal or at exactly 90 degrees from the other.
Ans. 5. The Examiner submits that paragraph 52 of the Specification does
not provide a basis for the disputed limitation because “as exhibited in the
sketch above, it is possible to have a tangential fuel inlet (tangential inlet B)
and a radial fuel inlet (radial inlet) according [sic] the cited paragraph
recitation that are not even close to being orthogonal as claimed.” Id. at 6.
The test for sufficiency under the written description requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
banc). To have “possession,” “the specification must . . . show that the
inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that Figure 6, for example, provides
adequate support for the contested limitation. Appellant points out correctly
that “[a] scaled drawing is not necessary to illustrate an orthogonal
relationship between the tangential fuel inlet and the radial fuel inlet. The
drawing only needs to illustrate the orthogonal relationship between the
tangential fuel inlet and the radial fuel inlet.” Reply Br. 4. One of ordinary
Appeal 2020-005781
Application 14/759,481

7
skill in the art would understand that, for a circular configuration such as
depicted in Figure 6, a radius is perpendicular to a tangent line at their point
of contact. Consistent with this understanding, Figure 6 depicts radial inlet
98, which supplies a radial flow 102 of fuel, as being perpendicular
(orthogonal) to tangential inlet 96, which supplies a tangential flow 100 of
fuel, as required by claims 1 and 10. See also Spec. ¶¶ 53–54. In regard to
the Examiner’s annotated figure (Ans. 6), even if “tangential inlet B” as
drawn is not orthogonal to the “radial inlet,” this does not demonstrate that
Appellant’s disclosure fails to provide written description support for the
contested limitation. The Specification need only describe the invention, as
claimed. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., 314 F.3d 1313,
1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, drawings can be relied on for what they
reasonably disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Mraz, 455
F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972); In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA
1979). Here, as Figure 6 depicts an embodiment in which a radial fuel inlet
is orthogonal to a tangential fuel inlet, this is sufficient to demonstrate that
the disclosure of the application relied upon would reasonably convey to
those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–12
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.

Appeal 2020-005781
Application 14/759,481

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12 112(a) Written
Description
1–12

REVERSED