Ex Parte ElKady et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

13690057 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/690,057 11130/2012
6147 7590 05/31/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ahmed Mostafa ElKady
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
247838-1 4058
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AHMED MOST AF A ELKADY,
SHERIF HATEMABDULLA MOHAMED,
NARENDRA DIGAMBER JOSHI, HASAN KARIM,
GILBERT OTTO KRAEMER, SAMUEL DAVID DRAPER,
and ASHWIN RAMAN
Appeal2017-007235
Application 13/690,057
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
General Electric Company ("Appellant") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-17 and 19-27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 General Electric Company is the Applicant and identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-007235
Application 13/690,057
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
8. A method for combusting fuel comprising:
combusting a vanadium-containing fuel in a combustor,
wherein the vanadium containing fuel includes a vanadium
concentration within a range of greater than 1 ppm to 400 ppm;
channeling a portion of a combustor exhaust gas to the
combustor to generate a reduced oxygen mixture including the
vanadium-containing fuel, ambient air, and the portion of the
combustor exhaust gas;
combusting the reduced-oxygen mixture in the combustor to
generate the combustor exhaust gas including at least one of vanadium
trioxide (V203) particles and vanadium tetroxide (V204) particles,
wherein combusting the reduced-oxygen mixture facilitates
preventing vanadium pentoxide (V20s) particle formation;
channeling the combustor exhaust gas to a particle separator;
and
removing substantially all of the V 203 particles and the V 204
particles from the combustor exhaust gas.
REJECTIONS
1) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kulkarni
(US 2011/0023445 Al, published Feb. 3, 2011).
2) Claims 9, 12-15, 19, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kulkarni and Snook (US 2012/0023958 Al, published
Feb. 2, 2012).
3) Claims 10, 11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kulkarni, Snook, and Bookbinder (US 2011/0247312
Al, published Oct. 13, 2011).
2
Appeal2017-007235
Application 13/690,057
4) Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kulkarni, Snook, and Li (US 2011/0302922 Al, published Dec. 15,
2011).
5) Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kulkarni and Li.
6) Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kulkarni and Evulet (US 2008/0309087 Al, published Dec. 18, 2008).
7) Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kulkarni, Li, and Evulet.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The dispositive issue in this rejection is whether Kulkarni discloses
combusting a vanadium containing fuel with "a vanadium concentration with a
range of greater than 1 ppm to 400 ppm" as required by claim 8. The Examiner
relies on the disclosure of paragraph 22 of Kulkarni which provides "the fuel has
up to about 1000 ppm by weight vanadium" in one embodiment and "from about
0 .2 ppm by weight to about 1000 ppm by weight vanadium" in another
embodiment. Final Act. 4 (citing Kulkarni, Figs. 3, 4, i-f 22); see also Kulkarni
i-f 22. The Examiner also finds that "during startup of the gas turbine system ...
the fuel will not be stripped of vanadium and other heavy metals and therefore the
vanadium concentration of the fuel used during starting will be greater than
vanadium concentration of the treated fuel." Final Act. 5 (citing Kulkarni i-f 37).
Appellant contends that Figure 4 of Kulkarni discloses "fuel that is
combusted in the combustor of the gas turbine 440 is fuel from the tank 465, which
as disclosed in paragraph [0054] is treated fuel that has less than 0.5 ppm by
3
Appeal2017-007235
Application 13/690,057
weight Vanadium." Appeal Br. 3. Appellant also contends that "[t]here is no
disclosure or suggestion in Kulkarni et al. of combusting untreated fuel, even
during start up ... [and] Paragraph [0037] of Kulkarni ... discloses that the treated
fuel has about 1 ppm or less of Vanadium." Id. at 4.
The Examiner responds that
Kulkarni teaches ... that the actual amount of vanadium in the treated fuel
... will vary depending on the starting amount in the fuel. Although
Kulkarni teaches (Paragraph 0054) that, in one embodiment, the treated fuel
(from 450 in Figure 4) has less than 0.5 ppm by weight of vanadium,
Kulkarni further teaches (Paragraph 3 7) that, in another embodiment, the
treated fuel (from 450 in Figure 4) has about 1 ppm by weight of vanadium .
. . . Kulkarni does teach an embodiment which includes a point that falls
within the claimed range.
Ans. 3.
For the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8.
Kulkarni is directed "to methods and systems for purifying low-grade fuel
and more particularly, to the removal of vanadium." Kulkarni i-f 2. Kulkarni
discloses that the fuel can have "up to about 1000 ppm by weight vanadium." Id.
i-f 21. Vanadium is removed from the fuel by the processes of fractionation and/ or
extraction by absorption. See id. i-fi-124--33. As a result of the processes disclosed
for removal of vanadium, the vanadium content of the treated fuel can be from
about 1 ppm or less in one embodiment to 0.5 ppm or less in another embodiment
to about 0.2 ppm in another embodiment. Id. i-f 37. However, in all embodiments,
Kulkarni discloses that fuel with "less than 0.5 ppm vanadium ... may be used to
fuel a gas turbine." Id., see also i-fi-1 42, 50, 54, 62, 68; Table 1. The Examiner does
not direct us to any disclosure in Kulkarni that fuel with a concentration of
vanadium greater than 1 ppm is actually combusted in a gas turbine engine during
steady state operation or at startup. In the absence of such a disclosure, the
Examiner's finding that Kulkarni discloses "combusting a vanadium-containing
4
Appeal2017-007235
Application 13/690,057
fuel ... [that] includes a vanadium concentration within a range of greater than 1
ppm to 400 ppm" is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We, thus,
do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 as anticipated by Kulkarni.
Rejection 2
Claims 9, 12, 13, and 25
Claims 9, 12, and 13 depend directly or indirectly from claim 8. Appeal Br.
6 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not rely on Snook to cure the deficiency in
the disclosure of Kulkarni discussed above in connection with claim 8. Final Act.
5-7. We do not sustain the rejections of claims 9, 12, 13, and 25 for the same
reasons.
Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20
Appellant's argument for the patentability of independent claim 14 is that
the claim recites "the fuel that is combusted has a vanadium concentration within a
range of greater than 1 ppm to 400 ppm, which as discussed above is neither
disclosed nor suggested by Kulkarni." Appeal Br. 4.
Claim 14 recites inter alia:
A power generation system comprising: a vanadium-containing fuel
supply, wherein the vanadium-containing fuel includes a vanadium
concentration within a range of greater than 1 ppm to 400 ppm ... a
combustor configured to: combust the vanadium containing fuel to
generate a combustor exhaust gas including at least one of vanadium
trioxide (V203) particles and vanadium tetroxide (V204) particles.
The Examiner relies on paragraph 22 of Kulkarni for disclosure of a fuel
supply with a vanadium concentration within a range of greater than 1 ppm to 400
5
Appeal2017-007235
Application 13/690,057
ppm. Final Act. 7. The Examiner also finds that Kulkarni' s combustor is
configured as required by claim 14. Id. (citing Kulkarni i-fi-154--55).
Claim 14 requires "a vanadium-containing/uel supply, wherein the
vanadium-containing fuel includes a vanadium concentration with a range of
greater than 1 ppm to 400 ppm" but does not require that fuel that is combusted
have a vanadium concentration in that range. Rather, claim 14 requires merely that
the combustor be configured to combust such fuel. Appellant's argument is, thus,
not commensurate with the scope of claim 14. We also note that Appellant does
not provide persuasive argument to dispute the Examiner's findings that Kulkarni
discloses a vanadium containing fuel supply as recited in claim 14 and a combustor
configured as required by claim 14. See Appeal Br. 4. As Appellant does not
apprise us of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of claim 14. Claims 15, 19,
and 27 depend from claim 14. Id. at 7 (Claims App.). Appellant does not provide
separate arguments for the patentability of these dependent claims apart from the
argument presented in connection with claim 14. See id. at 4. We sustain the
rejection of claims 15, 19, and 27 for the same reasons.
Rejection 3
Claims 10 and 11
Claims 10 and 11 depend indirectly from claim 8. Appeal Br. 6 (Claims
App.). The Examiner does not rely on Snook or Bookbinder to cure the deficiency
in the disclosure of Kulkarni discussed above in connection with claim 8. Final
Act. 10. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11 for the same reasons.
Claims 21-23
Claims 21-23 depend directly or indirectly from claim 14. Appeal Br. 8
(Claims App.). Appellant does not provide separate argument for the patentability
of any of these dependent claims apart from the argument presented in connection
6
Appeal2017-007235
Application 13/690,057
with claim 14. See Appeal Br. 4. We sustain the rejection of claims 21-23 for the
same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 14.
Rejection 4
Claims 16 and 17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 14. Appeal Br. 7
(Claims App.). Appellant does not provide separate argument for the patentability
of either of these dependent claims apart from the argument presented in
connection with claim 14. See Appeal Br. 4. We sustain the rejection of claims 16
and 17 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 14.
Rejections 5 and 6
Claims 24 and 26 depend from claim 8. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). The
Examiner does not rely on Li or Evulet to cure the deficiency in the disclosure of
Kilkarni discussed above in connection with claim 8. Final Act. 12. We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 24 and 26 for the same reasons.
Rejection 7
Claim 27, like claim 8, requires "combusting a fuel that includes a vanadium
concentration within a range of greater than 1 ppm to 400 ppm in a combustor."
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). For claim 27, the Examiner relies on the same
findings from Kulkarni as for claim 8 to establish this claim limitation. Final Act.
12. The Examiner does not rely on Li and Evulet to cure the deficiency in the
disclosure of Kulkarni discussed above in connection with claim 8. Id. at 14. We
do not sustain the rejection of claim 27 because it is based on an erroneous factual
determination. See In re Warner, 379 F .2d 1011, 1017 (CCP A 1967) (holding that
"[ t ]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal
conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand.").
7
Appeal2017-007235
Application 13/690,057
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-13 and 24--27 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14--17 and 19-23 is affirmed.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8