Ex Parte Böttcher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

12814707 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
12/814,707 06/14/2010 Andreas Bottcher 2009P09075US 9932
22116 7590 09/05/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
HEYAMOTO, AARON H
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS BOTTCHER, TOBIAS KRIEGER, and
ULRICH WORZ
Appeal 2015-006184
Application 12/814,707
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JILL D. HILL, and BRENT M.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andreas Bottcher et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 11,13 and 17—22.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 23—30 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2015-006184
Application 12/814,707
BACKGROUND
Sole independent claim 11, reproduced below, represents the claimed
subject matter.
11. A burner arrangement for a combustion system for
combusting liquid fuels, comprising:
a burner hub;
an air supply channel; and
a fuel supply channel for each type of fuel,
wherein the fuel supply channel is at least partially
embodied in the burner hub,
wherein a flow divider is arranged in the fuel supply
channel,
wherein the flow divider is distanced from a wall of the
fuel supply channel so that an interspace associated with a flow
path of a fuel flowing through the fuel supply channel is formed
between the wall and the flow divider,
wherein the flow divider comprises a pipe including a
central pipe opening and a disk including a central flow-through
opening corresponding to the pipe opening, and
wherein, during operation, a majority of the fuel flows
through the central pipe opening.
REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 11, 13, 17, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Willis (US 6,016,658, iss. June 25, 2000).3 Appeal
Br. 3.
2 The rejection of claims 12, 13, 14, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have
been withdrawn. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3.
3 Although initially listed as pending and rejected by the Examiner (Final
Act. 1), claims 12 and 14—16 have been canceled (Final Act. 2, Appeal Br.
8—9 (Claims App.)). The Examiner’s statement of the anticipation rejection
includes a typographical error, referring only to “Claims 12.” Final Act. 3—
4. Further, Appellants argue claims 11—17 and 20—22 in the Appeal Brief,
despite the Claims Appendix listing only claims 11, 13, and 17—22.
2
Appeal 2015-006184
Application 12/814,707
II. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Willis. Final Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants argue claims 11, 13, 17 and 20—22 as a group. We select
independent claim 11 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 13,17 and 20—22 stand or fall with claim 11.
The Examiner finds that Willis discloses a combustion system
comprising a burner hub (combustor 22), an air supply channel (between
inner recuperator wall 59 and cylindrical outer liner 44 of combustor
housing 39 in Figure 6), a fuel supply channel (fuel inlet tubes 97 (gas), 98
(liquid) in Figure 20) for each type of fuel, and a flow divider (injector tube
99 and fuel distribution centering ring 65 in Figure 20), the flow divider
being distanced from a wall of the fuel supply channel to form an interspace
therebetween. Final Act. 3. The Examiner provides the following annotated
cutaway portion of Willis’ Figure 20, designating the portion of Willis’ fuel
injector that forms the claimed interspace. Id. at 4.
Annotated detail view from Figure 20 showing the fuel injector.
Regarding the claimed majority of the fuel flowing through a central
pipe opening of the flow divider “during operation,” the Examiner finds that,
3
Appeal 2015-006184
Application 12/814,707
in Willis, “if only liquid fuel is available and used, all ([i.e.,] a majority) of
the fuel will flow through the central pipe opening [99].” See Final Act. 2.
The Examiner concludes that this limitation is an intended use limitation,
and therefore entitled to little or no weight. Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding, that all of the liquid fuel
flowing through Willis’ central pipe opening 99 meets the “during
operation” limitation “misses a key point in connection with the claimed
interspace.” Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellants, when all of the liquid
fuel flows through Willis’ central pipe opening 99, “the purported interspace
of Willis is no longer ‘an interspace associated with a flow path of a fuel
flowing through the fuel supply channel’” as claimed. Id. To support this
argument, Appellants allege that an interspace is “a region associated with
the flow path, in which an adjustable continual fluid flow flows” to provide
various advantages. Appeal Br. 4 (citing Spec. 115).
Appellants appear to be arguing that the terms “interspace” and/or
“associated with a flow path” imply continuous fuel flow through the
annular channel defined between Willis’ injector tube 61 and its injector
tube 99 for the annular channel to meet the interspace limitation of claim 11.
We are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would understand “an
interspace associated with a flow path” to require that liquid actually flow
through the space during use. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that we give claims “their
broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”). We further, upon
considering Appellants’ arguments, decline to construe “interspace
4
Appeal 2015-006184
Application 12/814,707
associated with a flow path” so narrowly that the term cannot include an
interspace surrounding a flow path.
Appellants also argue that the “during operation” limitation is not
intended use. Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellants, “there are substantial
technical advantages resulting from the claimed structures that should not be
trivialized under the disguise of intended use.” Id.
Regardless of whether the “during operation” limitation is an intended
use limitation, the Examiner finds that, when liquid fuel is supplied through
Willis’ inlet tube 98, the entirety of the fuel flowing through the inner
injector tube 99 is a “majority” of the fuel flow as recited in claim 11. The
phrase “during operation” does not specify a particular type of operation;
and is sufficiently broad to include an operation in which liquid fuel is
supplied to the combustor. Appellants have not argued that, or otherwise
persuaded us that, the term “majority” is not met by all of the fluid flow.
Appellants contend that, because Willis discloses injecting only one of
(1) liquid fuel through inlet tube 98 and inner injector tube 99, or (2) gas fuel
through inlet tube 97 and injector tube 61, there is no structure in Willis that
results in a fuel path of “a” fuel flowing “so that the majority of the fuel
flow flows through the central opening, and ... a minimal flow flows
through the interspace.” Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by this argument, because claim 11 does not
recite a minimal flow flowing through the interspace. Further, as stated
above, Appellants have not persuaded us that the term “majority” is not met
by all of the fluid flow.
Appellants lastly argue that Willis’ centering ring 65, found by the
Examiner to meet part of the “flow divider” limitation, engages an outer wall
5
Appeal 2015-006184
Application 12/814,707
of the injector, and therefore Willis’ flow divider cannot be “distanced from
a wall of the fuel supply channel” as claimed. Reply Br. 2. We decline to
consider this argument, because it is raised for the first time in the Reply
Brief without good cause being shown. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any
argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or
is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer . . . will not
be considered by the Board . . . unless good cause is shown.”).
Rejection II
Regarding Rejection II, Appellants make no argument that dependent
claims 18 and 19 would be patentable over Willis if independent claim 11 is
anticipated by Willis. We sustain Rejection II for the reasons set forth
above.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 11, 13, 17, and 20-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Willis.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Willis.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6