Veninger, Albert et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2020

2019003806 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2020)

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.
12/742,031 05/07/2010 Albert Veninger 50078US01-U73-012425 1469
12208 7590 09/03/2020
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2020 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBERT VENINGER, JEFFREY MELMAN,
CHRISTINE BLANCHARD, and BARRY SCHLEIN
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031
Technology Center 3700

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–11, and 21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a gas turbine engine with reduced
emissions. Spec. 1:4–6. Claim 1, reproduced below with italics added, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine having reduced emissions
comprising:
a compressor for providing pressurized air; and
a diffusion combustor module including a fuel nozzle in
communication with a combustion chamber comprising:
an inner metal liner defining at least one combustion
zone for burning a mixture of fuel and a first portion of the
pressurized air, said inner metal liner having a wall with a hot
side facing the at least one combustion zone and an oppositely
faced cold side;
a shroud affixed to said inner metal liner and
circumscribing a portion of said inner liner, said shroud spaced
from said cold side and forming an annulus there between for
accepting a second portion of the pressurized air therein;
a first plurality of bosses projecting radially outward into
the annulus from the cold side of the inner metal liner toward
the shroud, the first plurality of bosses having boss bores
penetrating the boss and the inner metal liner, and a radially
outer sealing surface;
a first plurality of apertures penetrating the shroud, ones
of the first plurality of apertures aligning with and
corresponding to ones of the first plurality of bosses; and
a plurality of heat transfer features disposed on said cold
side of said inner metal liner wall for exchanging heat from said
wall to the second portion of the pressurized air;
wherein at operating temperatures said inner metal liner
expands relative to the shroud such that each radially outer
sealing surface of the first plurality of bosses seats against the
shroud for the first portion of pressurized air to radially enter
the at least one combustion zone, and to prevent the second
portion of the pressurized air in the annulus from radially
entering the at least one combustion zone through the first
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

3
plurality of bosses, maintaining flow of the second portion of
the pressurized air within the annulus.
REFERENCE(S)
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Cramer US 4,838,031 June 13, 1989
Pidcock US 7,000,397 B2 Feb. 21, 2006
Green US 7,007,482 B2 Mar. 7, 2006
Mandai US 2003/0079461 A1 May 1, 2003
Glezer US2005/0044857 A1 Mar. 3, 2005
REJECTIONS
1) The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Pidcock and Mandai.
2) The Examiner rejects claims 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Pidcock.
3) The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pidcock, Mandai, and Green.
4) The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pidcock and Green.
5) The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Glezer, Mandai, Cramer, and Pidcock.
6) The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glezer, Mandai, Cramer, Pidcock, and Green.
7) The Examiner rejects claims 7–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glezer, Cramer, and Pidcock.
8) The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glezer, Cramer, Pidcock, and Green.
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

4
OPINION
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 2, and 4–Obviousness over Pidcock and
Mandai
The Examiner finds that Pidcock discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except the combustor being a diffusion combustor. Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner finds that Mandai discloses a diffusion combustor and
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Pidcock to provide diffusion combustion in Pidcock’s gas turbine
combustor as a “simple substitution of prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results.” Id. at 5.
Appellant first contends that Pidcock fails to disclose the limitation in
claim 1 of preventing “a second portion of air in the annulus from entering
the at least one combustion zone, maintaining flow of the second portion
of air within the annulus” because Pidcock discloses “film cooling holes
formed through the ‘inner metal liner’ which allows flow of a different
portion of cooling air from the annulus into the combustion chamber,
directly contrary to the limitation of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 5–6.
According to Appellant, the Examiner’s rejection “eliminate[s] film cooling
holes through the liner” of Pidcock and thereby renders Pidcock
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or improperly changes its principle of
operation. Id. at 6.
The Examiner responds that the rejection did not suggest modifying
Pidcock to eliminate film cooling holes from its liner. Ans. 4–5. The
Examiner further responds that Appellant’s argument concerning
maintaining flow of the second portion of air within the annulus is based on
an erroneous reading of the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 3–4. According to
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

5
the Examiner, claim 1 “does not require the inner liner to be free of cooling
holes and does not require that all of the flow in the annulus remain in the
annulus because . . . the ‘maintaining’ is specifically claimed as a function of
the seating between the boss and shroud, not as an overall function of the
liner.” Id. at 3. The Examiner explains that “[w]hen the boss seats against
the shroud in . . . Pidcock, the seating provides a seal which prevents air in
the annulus from flowing through the seating into the combustion chamber,
thereby maintaining air, at that particular location and time, in the annulus.”
Id. at 4. The Examiner further explains that although “some of the air may
then flow elsewhere (i.e. downstream in the annulus or through the film
cooling holes of the liner),” the claim does not require that “no air should
exit the annulus through the liner.” Id. Appellant’s first contention is not
persuasive for the following reasons.
The relevant limitation of claim 1 states “prevent the second portion
of the pressurized air in the annulus from radially entering the at least one
combustion zone through the first plurality of bosses, maintaining the flow
of the second portion of the pressurized air within the annulus.” Appeal Br.
16 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). We note that Appellant begins this
argument by omitting the portion of claim 1 that we have italicized. See
Appeal Br. 5.
Pidcock discloses a combustor liner with an inner wall 36, comprised
of tiles 40, which the Examiner finds corresponds to the recited inner metal
liner (Final Act. 4), and outer wall 38 which the Examiner finds corresponds
to the recited shroud (id.), whereby cooling air flows in the gap between the
two walls. Pidcock 4:34–44, Fig. 2. Pidcock also discloses that air enters
into combustion chambers through mixing ports where the air is mixed with
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

6
fuel to control emissions. Id. at 4:53–57. Figure 6 of Pidcock is reproduced
below:

Figure 6 of Pidcock “is a diagrammatic cross section of a combustor wall
structure.” Id. at 3:42–43. In the Figure 6 embodiment, air flows into the
combustion chamber through mixing port 56 which is formed by cylindrical
wall 58 of boss 54. Id. at 5:25–27. Boss 54 comprises an annular flange 60,
which the Examiner finds corresponds to the recited radially outer sealing
surface (Final Act. 4), and which seats against the outer wall 38 at operating
temperature. Id. In this embodiment, “a plurality of cooling holes 44,
angled at about 30o to 40o to the general plane of the tile 40” generate a
cooling film on the combustor wall. Pidcock 5:30–32. Contrary to
Appellant’s argument, the Examiner does not suggest removing these
cooling holes in the Final Office Action. See Final Act. 3–5. Consequently,
there are two portions of air shown in Figure 6 when annular flange 60 seals
against the outer wall: the first portion entering the combustion chamber
radially through mixing port 56 and the second portion in the annulus
between the inner and outer walls which also flows through the cooling
holes 44. In this configuration, we agree with the Examiner that the second
portion of air does not enter the combustion zone through mixing port 56
when boss 54 seats against outer wall 38 and is maintained in the annulus
between the two walls which is what claim 1 requires. Appellant’s argument
that the second portion flows into the combustion chamber through the
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

7
cooling holes is not persuasive because the argument is not commensurate in
scope with claim 1. As the Examiner correctly notes, the claim does not
preclude air in the annulus from flowing into the combustion chamber. The
claim only requires that air from the annulus not flow into the combustion
chamber “through the first plurality of bosses.”
Appellant’s second contention is that “film cooling the inner surface
(hot side) of the inner wall as shown by Pidcock greatly reduces the thermal
mass of the liner as compared to non-film cooled liners” which “minimizes
relative thermal expansion between the ‘inner liner’ and ‘shroud’ due to the
nearly non[-]existent thermal differential.” Appeal Br. 8. According to
Appellant, this purported reduction in thermal differential would not allow
the inner liner to expand relative to the shroud and the bosses to seat against
the shroud as recited in claim 1 and would complicate the assembly of the
device recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner responds that “Pidcock does
not teach what the differential is” and in any event, “[t]he liner is exposed to
combustion gases and thus greater heat, and therefore expands relative to the
shroud (which is exposed to much cooler air).” Ans. 5, 8. This contention is
not persuasive because it is attorney argument not supported by persuasive
evidence that Pidcock’s film cooled combustor would have reduced thermal
mass and minimal thermal expansion.
We have considered all of Appellant’s contentions and determine that
Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not make any separate arguments for
the patentability of dependent claims 2 and 4. Appeal Br. 4–5. Therefore,
we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 4.

Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

8
Rejection 2: Claims 7, 8, and 10–Anticipation by Pidcock
In arguing for the patentability of claim 7, Appellant relies on
substantially the same contentions as for Rejection 1. See Appeal Br. 11–13.
In particular, Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly modified
Pidcock to remove the film cooling holes which “would entirely undermine
operation of the disclosure.” Appeal Br. 12. This contention is not
persuasive because the Examiner did not modify Pidcock to remove the
cooling holes. See Final Act. 2–3. Appellant also repeats the contention that
Pidcock “reduces the differential between a ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ side and
virtually eliminates relative thermal expansion between the ‘inner liner’ and
‘shroud.” Appeal Br. 13. As discussed above, in connection with Rejection
1, this contention is not persuasive because it is not supported by persuasive
evidence. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 7. Appellant does not
make any separate argument for the patentability of dependent claims 8 and
10. Appeal Br. 4–5. Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection of
claims 8 and 10.
Rejection 3: Claim 5–Obviousness over Pidcock, Mandai, and Green
Appellant does not argue for the patentability of claim 5, which
depends from claim 1, over the combined teachings of Pidcock, Mandai, and
Green. Appeal Br. 4–5. Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection of
claim 5.
Rejection 4: Claim 11–Obviousness over Pidcock and Green
Appellant does not argue for the patentability of claim 11, which
depends from claim 7, over the combined teachings of Pidcock and Green.
Appeal Br. 4–5. Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

9
Rejection 5: Claims 1–4 and 21–Obviousness over Glezer, Mandai,
Cramer and Pidcock
The Examiner finds that Glezer discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 except for a diffusion combustor, the inner liner being metal, and the
recited first plurality of bosses which, inter alia, “seat[s] against the shroud
for the first portion of pressurized air to radially enter the at least one
combustion zone.” Final Act. 6–7. The Examiner relies on Mandai to
disclose a diffusion combustor, Cramer for disclosing “mixing ports in order
to provide air for mixing in the combustion zone,” and Pidcock for
disclosing the plurality of bosses and a metal inner liner. Id. at 7.
Appellant first contends that “Cramer teaches an internally cooled
liner separate from [the] other parts (e.g., ‘housing 22’ or ‘chamber wall
25’).” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds that even though Cramer
teaches “an internally cooled liner (as opposed to a liner and a shroud), the
structure is the same” because it discloses “two walls with an annulus
between them and air ports which allow a portion of the air into the
combustion zone.” Ans. 6–7 (citing Cramer, Fig. 2, ports 28). The Examiner
further notes that in any event the rejection relies on Glezer to teach the
shroud and liner and Cramer to “teach that it was well known in the art to
provide mixing ports in order to provide air for mixing in the combustion
zone.” Id. at 7. Appellant’s first contention is not persuasive because it is
not responsive to the rejection which relies on Glezer for disclosure of the
liner and shroud. See Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant next contends that because Cramer’s combustion chamber
liner 42 is ceramic that it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
substitute “a metal layer for ceramic layer 42, as Cramer specifically calls
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

10
for the thermal resistance properties of ceramics in order to withstand
intense heat in the combustion chamber.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner
responds that the rejection does not rely on modifying Cramer’s ceramic
layer to be metal but instead relies on Cramer to teach mixing ports. Ans. 7.
This contention is also not persuasive because it not responsive to the
rejection which does not modify the material of Cramer’s ceramic layer 42
but rather relies on Pidcock’s disclosure of a metal liner to cure the lack of
explicit disclosure of Glezer’s liner being metal. See Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant next contends “that adding a fourth reference, Pidcock, to
the mix further complicates the basis of the rejection and requires a
significant level of hindsight.” Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant,
because “it would not have occurred to a skilled artisan how to combine the
other three references in the manner alleged by the Examiner, adding
Pidcock would also complicate the thermal expansion aspect of the
purported rejection.” Id. Appellant relies on the argument from Rejection 1
that “Pidcock necessarily reduce[s] the relative thermal differential between
the hot and cold side of the liner.” Id. The Examiner responds that one of
ordinary skill in the art after reading Pidcock “would understand to provide a
boss which extends outward from the liner and abuts the shroud, and that
such addition would allow air to flow from outside the shroud into the
combustion zone,” and “the relative thermal differential would still be
present in Pidcock due to the inner liner being subject to [the higher]
combustion temperatures.” Ans. 8. This contention is not persuasive for the
following reasons.
We note that Appellant does not dispute any of the Examiner’s factual
findings. See Appeal Br. 9–11. Nor does Appellant specifically dispute any
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

11
of the reasons stated by the Examiner for combining the disclosures of the
references. See id. As noted above in connection with Rejection 1, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions concerning the Pidcock thermal
differential issue. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by this contention
because Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or reasons for combining the references which are supported by a
rational underpinning. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(iv) (Appellant “shall
explain why the Examiner erred.”)
We have considered all of Appellant’s contentions and determine that
Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not make any separate arguments for
the patentability of dependent claims 2–4 and 21. Appeal Br. 4–5.
Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection of those claims.
Rejection 6: Claim 5–Obviousness over Glezer, Mandai, Cramer,
Pidcock, and Green
Appellant does not argue for the patentability of claim 5, which
depends from claim 1, over the combined teachings of Glezer, Mandai,
Cramer, Pidcock, and Green. Appeal Br. 4–5. Therefore, we summarily
sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Rejection 7: Claims 7–10–Obviousness over Glezer, Cramer, and
Pidcock
In arguing for the patentability of claim 7, Appellant repeats the
contention from Rejection 5 that the rejection improperly changes the
material of Cramer from ceramic to metal. Appeal Br. 13–14. This
contention is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above in
connection with Rejection 5. Appellant then repeats essentially the same
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

12
arguments from Rejection 5 against the combination of references. See id. at
14. This contention is also not persuasive for the same reasons discussed
above in connection with Rejection 5. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 7. Appellant does not argue for the patentability of claims 8–10,
which depend from claim 7. Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection
of claims 8–10.
Rejection 8: Claim 11–Obviousness over Glezer, Cramer, Pidcock,
and Green
Appellant does not argue for the patentability of claim 11, which
depends from claim 7, over the combined teachings of Glezer, Cramer,
Pidcock and Green. Appeal Br. 4–5. Therefore, we summarily sustain the
rejection of claim 11.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4 103(a) Pidcock, Mandai 1, 2, 4
7, 8, 10 102(b) Pidcock 7, 8, 10
5 103(a) Pidcock, Mandai,
Green
5
11 103(a) Pidcock, Green 11
1–4, 21 103(a) Glezer, Mandai,
Cramer, Pidcock
1–4, 21
5 103(a) Glezer, Mandai,
Cramer, Pidcock,
Green
5
Appeal 2019-003806
Application 12/742,031

13
7–10 103(a) Glezer, Cramer,
Pidcock
7–10
11 103 Glezer, Cramer,
Pidcock, Green
11
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–11,
21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).
AFFIRMED