Ex Parte ElKady et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201813690057 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation