Ex Parte Bilbao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2018

12832099 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018)

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.
12/832,099 07/08/2010 Juan E. Portillo Bilbao 2010P08719US 3778
28524 7590 01/25/2018
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
GOYAL, ARUN
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2018 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUAN E. PORTILLO BILBAO,
SCOTT M. MARTIN, and DAVID M. RITLAND
Appeal 2016-000680
Application 12/832,0991
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
decision rejecting claims 1—4, 11-13, and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify Siemens Energy, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000680
Application 12/832,099
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A combustor comprising;
a first premix main burner comprising a first swirler
airfoil section;
a second premix main burner comprising a second
swirler airfoil section; and
a supply air reversing region upstream of the premix
main burners,
wherein the first premix main burner and the second
premix main burner constitute a part of an annular array of
burners;
wherein the first swirler airfoil section and the second
swirler airfoil section comprise respective airfoil geometries
effective to impart swirl to a respective first airflow and second
airflow that is characterized by a same swirl number as the
airflows exit respective premix main burners, and
wherein the first premix main burner comprises a first
diameter, and wherein the second premix main burner
comprises a second diameter that is different than the first
diameter and is effective to generate a first airflow mass flow
rate through the first premix main burner that is different than a
second airflow mass flow rate through the second premix main
burner.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—4, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
^ 1, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
II. Claims 1, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dawson (US 6,931,853 B2, iss. Aug. 23, 2005) and
Lefebvre, Gas Turbine Combustion: Alternative Fuels and Emissions 113-
151 (3rd ed.).
2
Appeal 2016-000680
Application 12/832,099
III. Claims 2—4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dawson, Lefebvre, and Matsuyama et al. (US 6,920,758
B2, iss. July 26, 2005) (“Matsuyama”).
IV. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Dawson, Lefebvre, and Ziminsky et al. (US 7,181,916 B2, iss. Feb. 27,
2007) (“Ziminsky”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, f 1
According to the rejection, independent claim 1 violates the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ^ 1, because the claim recites
new matter. Final Action 2. Specifically, claim 1 recites “the first premix
main burner comprises a first diameter, and wherein the second premix main
burner comprises a second diameter that is different than the first diameter”;
yet, according to the rejection, the Specification discloses “swirlers” having
different diameters, but not “burners” having different diameters. Id. The
Examiner finds that Figure 3 of the Specification shows a “gap” between the
smaller-diameter swirler 35 of the second premix main burner 15 and the
inner surface of the burner itself, such that — not withstanding their
different swirler diameters — the first premix main burner 14 and the second
premix main burner 15 have identical diameters. Answer 2-3.
The Appellants contend that Figures 1 and 3 — showing, respectively,
a perspective cutaway view and a plan view of first premix main burner 14
3
Appeal 2016-000680
Application 12/832,099
and second premix main burner 15 — disclose the recited subject matter.
Appeal Br. 10.
We agree with the Appellants’ assertion {id.) that, in Figure 3, “[t]he
smallest circle that circumscribes the ends of the airfoils represents an inside
diameter of the burner,” such that diameters D1 and D2 respectively define
diameters of first premix main burner 14 and second premix main burner 15,
respectively. See Spec., Fig. 3; Sept. 4, 2014 Amendment, p. 2. The
portions of Figure 3 that the Examiner identifies as “gap[sj” (see Answer 2-
3) appear instead to be structural elements. Although Figures 1 and 3 do not
show every diameter throughout the entirety of either first premix main
burner 14 and second premix main burner 15, Figure 3 does show at least
one such diameter of each premix main burner — i.e., diameter D1 of first
premix main burner 14 and diameter D2 of second premix main burner 15.
See Spec., Fig. 3. The Specification states that D1 is larger than D2. Sept.
4, 2014 Amendment, p. 2. This is sufficient to disclose that “the first premix
main burner comprises a first diameter,” and “the second premix main
burner comprises a second diameter that is different than the first diameter,”
as claim 1 recites.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 (and
claims 2—4 and 11 depending therefrom), under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ^ 1. For
similar reasons we also do not sustain the rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
^ 1, of independent claim 12, claim 13 depending therefrom, and
independent claim 20.
4
Appeal 2016-000680
Application 12/832,099
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants’ argument, regarding the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, turns on whether Dawson and Lefebvre teach or
suggest the following recited features of the claimed combustor:
wherein the first swirler airfoil section and the second
swirler airfoil section comprise respective airfoil geometries
effective to impart swirl to a respective first airflow and second
airflow that is characterized by a same swirl number as the
airflows exit respective premix main burners, and
wherein the first premix main burner comprises a first
diameter, and wherein the second premix main burner
comprises a second diameter that is different than the first
diameter and is effective to generate a first airflow mass flow
rate through the first premix main burner that is different than a
second airflow mass flow rate through the second premix main
burner.
See Appeal Br. 6-8, 11-15.
According to the rejection, Dawson teaches a combustor with two
burners with identical swirlers and burners with different diameters,
downstream of their swirlers — yet, producing airflows with the same swirl
number. Final Action 3—4. However, this characterization of Dawson relies
upon a misapplication of Lefebvre’s equation 4.36 for the determining the
swirl number in the special case of “an annular swirler with constant vane
angle 0.” Lefebvre 143. The Final Action states that equation 4.36
“depends only on the swirler geometry.” Final Action 3. Yet, as the
Appellants point out, the rejection mistakenly regards the swirl number of an
airflow to be unaffected by the downstream burner configuration, after
exiting the swirler. Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 lacks
sufficient articulated reasoning.
5
Appeal 2016-000680
Application 12/832,099
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
and its dependent claim 11 and, for similar reasons, independent claims 12
and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because the additional references are not
relied upon to overcome the identified deficiency of Dawson and Lefebvre,
we also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-4 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 11-13,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 11-13,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6