Ex Parte Chiu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201612468290 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/468,290 05/19/2009 John H. Chiu W07/055-0 9660 226 7590 12/22/2016 General Electric Technology GmbH 200 Great Pond Drive P.O. Box 500 WINDSOR, CT 06095 EXAMINER LAUX, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): gpo.mail@ge.com Janey.Bruno@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN H. CHIU and GEORGE D. MYLCHREEST Appeal 2015-002233 Application 12/468,290 Technology Center 3700 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE John H. Chiu and George D. Mylchreest (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2015-002233 Application 12/468,290 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject 1. A method for operating a steam generator comprising: providing a transport reactor; introducing only a substantially pure oxygen feed stream into said transport reactor in an amount sufficient to maintain the transport reactor at or above a specific system load, whereby the specific system load is the system load when only the substantially pure oxygen feed stream is provided to the transport reactor at a minimum flow velocity for operating said transport reactor; introducing a fuel into the transport reactor, wherein the fuel and the substantially pure oxygen are mixed prior to being introduced into the transport reactor and the resulting mixture is introduced into the transport reactor via the same inlet; combusting the fuel in the presence of said substantially pure oxygen feed stream to produce a flue gas, said flue gas containing solid material; separating said solid material from the flue gas; passing the solid material to a heat exchanger; mixing the solid material with the substantially pure oxygen feed stream and fuel prior to directing the mixture of the solid material, the substantially pure oxygen feed stream, and the fuel to said transport reactor to contribute to the combustion process occurring within the transport reactor; and directing the mixture of the fuel, substantially pure oxygen feed stream, and solid material into said transport reactor to contribute to the combustion process. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on matter: REFERENCES appeal is: Wormer Anderson US 4,823,712 US 6,505,567 B1 Apr. 25, 1989 Jan. 14, 2003 2 Appeal 2015-002233 Application 12/468,290 Weissinger US 7,331,313 B2 Feb. 19, 2008 Andrus US 8,196,532 B2 June 12,2012 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Andrus, Anderson, and Weissinger. II. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Andrus, Anderson, Weissinger, and Wormer. III. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Andrus, Anderson, Weissinger, Wormer, and Nack. IV. Claims 12 and 14—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Andrus, Anderson, Weissinger, and Nack. DISCUSSION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Andrus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except for “the oxidant being only substantially pure oxygen” and “mixing the solid material with the fuel prior to directing the mixture of solid material with fuel to said transport reactor.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that “Anderson teaches the oxidant being only substantially pure oxygen” {id. (citing Anderson 3:11—15)), and that “Weissinger teaches mixing the solid material with the fuel prior to directing the mixture of solid material with fuel to said transport reactor (3) (id. (citing Weissinger 5: 26—29, 41—43, Fig. 1)). Based on these findings the Examiner determines that it would be obvious to “combine the combustion reactor of Andrus, Jr. with the substantially pure oxygen feed of Anderson because 3 Appeal 2015-002233 Application 12/468,290 such a combination would have had the added benefit of a more efficient combustion reactor by eliminating the heating of inert nitrogen gas and a reduction or elimination of nitrogen oxide pollution production” and to “combine the combustion reactor of Andrus, Jr. because such a combination would have had the added benefit of pre-mixing the fuel with the solid material which provides a more uniform fuel content of the material in the fluidized bed which prevents the formation of cold zones within the combustor.” Id. at 3^4. Noting that “[o]nly Weissinger et al. is relied upon for suggesting mixing of substantially pure oxygen, fuel, and solid material prior to directing such a mixture into a reactor,” Appellants contend that “no such suggestion is provided by these sections of Weissinger et al. or any other portion of this reference.” Appeal Br. 11. In support of this contention, Appellants argue that “[t]he feed lines for the solid material, air, and fuel (e.g. lines 10, 11 and 15) are all separately fed into the combustion chamber by being fed separately into a funnel 6 of the combustion chamber.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 1—2. Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that Weissinger teaches that instead of having two separate inlets for fuel and recirculated materials, the fuel and recirculated materials can be introduced into the combustor via the same inlet after being combined (see Fig. 1, showing recirculated solids line (15) and fuel inlet line (10) being combined into a single line prior to entering the combustor (2, 3) (Col. 5, lines 26-29, 41- 43). Ans. 9. The Examiner further explains that Weissinger goes on to disclose that the recirculated solid materials, the fuel, and the oxidant are mixed together prior to entering the combustor (2, 3) (Fig. 1; combined recirculated solid 4 Appeal 2015-002233 Application 12/468,290 material and fuel line enters funnel (6, shown below the combustor), which mixes recirculated solid materials, fuel and the oxidant before the mixture is blown into the combustor (2, 3))- Id. at 10. In reply, Appellants argue that “Weissinger expressly discloses that the combustion chamber includes the funnel 6 or dual funnel 7” thus, “[tjhere is no mixing of any solid material, (ii) fuel, and (iii) substantially pure oxygen prior to that mixture being fed to a reactor.” Reply Br. 2. Weissinger states, “FIG. 2 shows a combustion chamber 3 having a simple funnel 6 in the lower area of the combustion chamber. On the other hand, FIG. 3 is a combustion chamber 3 having a dual funnel 7.” Weissinger 5:62—65. Thus, Appellants are correct. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2—10, which depend therefrom. Claim 20 also requires a steam generator “wherein the solid material and the fuel and the substantially pure oxygen are mixed prior to being introduced into the transport reactor and the resulting mixture is introduced into the transport reactor through an inlet in the transport reactor to contribute to the combustion process.” Appeal Br. 27. Thus, for the same reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20. Rejections II—IV Rejections II—IV rely upon the same erroneous finding as Rejection I discussed supra. Neither Wormer nor Nack cure the deficiency in this finding. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decisions as set forth in Rejection II—IV. 5 Appeal 2015-002233 Application 12/468,290 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are REVERSED. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation