11639859 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2013)

Ex Parte Brillert

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 3, 2013

11639859 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2013)

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. 11/639,859 12/15/2006 Dieter Brillert 2006P19973US 5462 7590 06/03/2013 Siemens Corporation Intellectual Property Department 170 Wood Avenue South Iselin, NJ 08830 EXAMINER YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DIETER BRILLERT ____________________ Appeal 2011-005294 Application 11/639,859 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JAMES P. CALVE, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005294 Application 11/639,859 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, and 12. Claims 7 and 10 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 4, and 5 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A cooling fluid injector for a gas turbine rotor, the cooling fluid injector comprising a circular array of vanes, each vane comprising a generally radial inflow portion and a generally axial outflow portion, wherein at least the outflow portion is angled partly tangentially and partly axially, the vanes defining flow paths between them for cooling air that follows the vanes generally radially along the inflow portions and axially-tangentially along the outflow portions. REJECTIONS1 1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durgin (US 6,050,079; iss. Apr. 18, 2000) and Hagle (US 5,575,616; iss. Nov. 19, 1996); and 2. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durgin, Hagle, and Adamson (US 4,296,599; iss. Oct. 27, 1981). 1 The only rejections pending are the new grounds of rejection noted in the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2011-005294 Application 11/639,859 3 OPINION Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Durgin discloses each of the features recited in claim 1 except the generally radial inflow portions of the vanes that define flow paths for cooling air that follows the vanes generally radially along the inflow portions. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Hagle teaches L-shaped vanes 56 including radial inflow portions that define flow paths for cooling air that follows the vanes generally radially along the inflow portions, and reasons that it would have been obvious to include radial inflow portions in Durgin in order to better control the flow of cooling fluid. Ans. 4, 7-8. Appellant contends that the vanes in Hagle have axial inflow portions, not radial inflow portions. Reply Br. 2. However, Hagle clearly shows a portion of each vane having a portion that extends radially (e.g., bottom portions of vanes in Figure 4). Appellant has failed to persuasively explain why these portions of the vanes in Hagle cannot reasonably be considered radial inflow portions. Appellant further contends that the vanes of Durgin and Hagle are not interchangeable and that there is no motivation for the Examiner’s proposed modification to Durgin because Durgin has a coolant control valve. Reply Br. 2. Initially, we note that the Examiner has not suggested replacing the vanes of Durgin with those found in Hagle. Rather, the Examiner has simply proposed modifying Durgin’s vanes to include a radial inflow portion. Ans. 4, 7. With regard to the lack of motivation alleged by Appellant, the Examiner has clearly explained that one skilled in the art would modify Durgin in order to better control the flow of cooling fluid. Id. Appellant’s general contention that Durgin would not be modified as Appeal 2011-005294 Application 11/639,859 4 suggested by the Examiner because of the control valve present in Durgin does not explain why one skilled in the art would not modify Durgin as proposed by the Examiner. For example, Appellant offers no explanation as to why the proposed modifications would not provide better control of the cooling fluid as suggested by the Examiner or why the control valve of Durgin would obviate this benefit. For the reasons set forth above, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claim 4 Appellant relies on the arguments presented above regarding claim 1 for the patentability of claim 4. Id. We are not convinced of Examiner error for the reasons set forth above and, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 4. Claim 5 The Examiner again finds that Durgin discloses each of the features recited in claim 5 except the inflow legs of the generally L-shaped flow paths being oriented radially inward. Ans. 5. As noted above, the Examiner finds that Hagle teaches radial legs of the vanes and corresponding flow paths. Ans. 4, 7-8. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to orient the inflow legs radially inward because it involves a mere reversal of the essential working parts. Ans. 5. Appellant explains that the radially inward inflow vane geometry provides the benefit of allowing “coolant into the rotor shaft, from which it can reach additional discs” and that Durgin does not provide the same Appeal 2011-005294 Application 11/639,859 5 benefit. Reply Br. 2. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 5 because the claim does not require coolant flow into the rotor shaft or to additional discs. Appellant further alleges that the proposed modifications to Durgin would require major structural changes requiring more than routine skill in the art and resulting in a change in the principle of operation in Durgin. Id. However, the Examiner has simply proposed modifying the inflow portion of the vane in Durgin to extend radially inward. This does not appear to be a major structural modification. The principle of operation also appears to be the same, with coolant flow being directed by the vanes. Appellant does not explain what the required major structural changes are or how the proposed modification would change the principle of operation in Durgin. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error. Appellant further explains that Hagle does not cure the deficiency in Durgin. Reply Br. 3-4. This argument is unconvincing for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 5. Claim 11 Claim 11 depends from claim 5 and further recites that the generally L-shaped flow paths are defined between generally planar L-shaped vanes. The Examiner finds that the vanes in Durgin are generally planar. Ans. 5. The Examiner explains that a generally planar vane is claimed, not a planar vane. Ans. 9. Appeal 2011-005294 Application 11/639,859 6 Appellant contends that because a portion of each of the vanes in Durgin is curved, they cannot be considered generally planar, as “‘[p]lanar’ means lying in a plane, i.e. flat and not curved.” Reply Br. 4. While planar may mean “flat and not curved,” Appellant has claimed a generally planar vane, not a planar vane. As explained by the Examiner, the term “generally” is broad. Ans. 9. Appellant does not point to, and we cannot find, anything in the Specification to indicate that “generally” is used in a manner other than its ordinary and customary meaning. “Generally” is often used to mean “mostly” and to allow some degree of deviation. See, e.g., North Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1346 (2005) (“generally” was used as a term of approximation such that “generally convex” meant “mostly convex”); Schoell v. Regal Marine Indus., Inc., 247 F.3d 1202, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“generally” means “mostly” so that claimed “generally flat aft keel” is not limited to a completely flat surface). Given the geometry of the vanes in Durgin, the Examiner’s finding that such an arrangement satisfies the claim limitation for “generally planar” appears reasonable as the vane is mostly planar. Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments regarding why the vanes in Durgin are not generally planar (i.e., the majority of the vane lying in a plane or being flat). Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error. For these reasons, in addition to those set forth above regarding claim 5, we sustain the rejection of claim 11. Appeal 2011-005294 Application 11/639,859 7 Claim 12 Claim 12 depends from claim 5 and further recites that a portion of the L-shaped flow path curves. The Examiner finds that the L-shaped vane of Durgin defines a curved portion. Ans. 6. Appellant contends that a vane does not lie in a plane if the vane has a curved portion. Reply Br. 5. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 12, as neither claim 12 nor claim 5 defines the vane as planar. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 12 for this reason, in addition to those set forth above regarding claim 5. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1 and claims 6, 8, and 9 depend from claim 5. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 further recite an adjustable plate that partially blocks an inflow passage of the injector to adjust a flow rate through the injector. The Examiner finds that Adamson discloses the claimed adjustment plate and reasons that it would have been obvious to include the adjustment plate in Durgin to control the amount of cooling air flow to the rotor. Ans. 6. Appellant contends that there is no motivation to add the adjustment plate from Adamson to Durgin because Durgin already has a coolant flow control valve. Reply Br. 5. However, as noted above, the Examiner explains that the adjustment plate would control the amount of cooling air flow to the rotor. Ans. 6. Appellant does not explain why the adjustment plate in the Examiner’s proposed modifications to Durgin could not provide at least some benefit. For example, the adjustment plate could provide Appeal 2011-005294 Application 11/639,859 8 control in the event of a failure of the coolant flow control valve in Durgin. See Durgin, col. 5, ll. 2-3 (“[t]he modulating first valve 70 is fail safed in an open position”). Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error. For these reasons, in addition to those set forth above regarding claims 1 and 5, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, and 12. 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 mls