Ex Parte Heilos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

12224482 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 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.
12/224,482 11/05/2009 Andreas Heilos 2006P04095WOUS 8892
22116 7590 02/24/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
BREAZEAL, WILLIAM LEE
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2017 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 HEILOS, WERNER KREBS, and
JAAP VAN KAMPEN
Appeal 2015-005190
Application 12/224,482
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and BRENT M. DOUGAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andreas Heilos et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the rejection of claims 19—25 and 27^40. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-005190
Application 12/224,482
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
19. A gas turbine burner comprising:
a combustion zone for burning a mixture comprising a
combustion exhaust gas to which a fuel gas is added; and
a fuel intermixing arrangement comprising a fuel nozzle
that sprays the fuel gas into the combustion exhaust gas at at least
0.2 times the speed of sound,
wherein a shear gradient in an edge region of a fuel gas
spray jet in a region in front of a nozzle outlet is above a critical
shear gradient for auto-ignition of the fuel gas.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Faulkner ’501
Faulkner ’640
DeFreitas
Miller
US 4,896,501
US 5,341,640
US 5,588,299
US 6,112,512
Jan. 30, 1990
Aug. 30, 1994
Dec. 31, 1996
Sept. 5, 2000
Philip P. Walsh and Paul Fletcher, Gas Turbine Performance , Blackwell
Science, Second Edition, 2004 (hereinafter “Walsh”).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 4th
paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to
depend upon a claim previously set forth.
II. Claims 19-22, 27—29, and 32—37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Faulkner ’501 and Miller.
2
Appeal 2015-005190
Application 12/224,482
III. Claims 23, 30, 31, and 38-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Faulkner ’501, Miller, and
Defreitas.
IV. Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Faulkner ’501, Miller, and Faulkner ’640.
V. Claims 29 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Faulkner ’501, DeFreitas, Miller, and Walsh.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner determines that claims 30 and 31 are in improper
dependent form because “[bjoth claims depend upon new claim 40, which is
not previously set forth.” Final Act. 2 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner’s
determination is premature.
Although, 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, states:
Subject to the following paragraph, a claim in dependent form
shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then
specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A
claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by
reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers,
during the course of examination it is often the case that new claims are
added and original claims are amended to depend from these new claims.
Accordingly, rule 37 C.F.R. § 1.126 states:
The original numbering of the claims must be preserved
throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled the
remaining claims must not be renumbered. When claims are
added, they must be numbered by the applicant consecutively
beginning with the number next following the highest
numbered claim previously presented (whether entered or not).
When the application is ready for allowance, the examiner, if
3
Appeal 2015-005190
Application 12/224,482
necessary, will renumber the claims consecutively in the order
in which they appear or in such order as may have been
requested by applicant.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.
Rejections II—IV
Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for Rejections II—IV.
See Appeal Br. 5—6. Rather, for all of these rejections, the dispositive issue
is whether or not Miller teaches a shear gradient.
The Examiner finds that:
Miller discloses an injector providing an airflow with
maximum penetration into the primary flow, by providing a sonic
or supersonic secondary flow from choked a injector having an
expansion area ratio of approximately 1.1, where the supersonic
velocity of the injected flow provides optimal mass flow
characteristics with a secondary flow with a corrected mass flow
parameter and secondary to primary total pressure ratio that are
as large as possible to enhance reduction of the nozzle’s
discharge coefficient.
Final Act. 4 (citing Miller 10:6—23). The Examiner explains that Appellants
have “quantified shear gradient as diverting the speed component of the gas
in the longitudinal direction toward the transverse or radial direction.” Id.
(citing Spec. 1 8). Based on these findings and the discussion of shear
gradient in the Specification, the Examiner determines that “Miller’s device
therefore provides shear gradients in the jets above a critical shear gradient
for auto-ignition; and it additionally discloses those shear gradients in col. 8,
1. 5Akx)1. 9,1. 2.” Id.
Appellants argue that “Miller does not describe the afterburner 64 . . .
Also, Miller does not describe with what speed the fuel provided by the
afterburner 64 is sprayed into the primary fluidic flow 14.” Appeal Br. 5.
4
Appeal 2015-005190
Application 12/224,482
Although Appellants are correct, this is not indicative of error as Miller was
not relied upon to teach these limitations. See Final Act. 3^4. Rather, the
Examiner finds that Faulkner ’501 discloses an afterburner and the spraying
of fuel into the combustion gas at least 0.2 times the speed of sound. See id.
at 3.
Appellants further argue that Miller’s “pulsed cross flow does not
actually form a spray jet, but a sequence of swirls flowing into the exhaust
gas. Such a sequence of swirls cannot form a shear flow, and thus a shear
gradient, delaying an auto-ignition of the fuel gas.” Appeal Br. 5.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that “a shear
gradient, as defined by appellant and as known in the art (‘decreasing
[changing] speed over the edge region of the jet’) is created by the injection
of the fuel stream into the exhaust stream at different speed and direction.”
Ans. 2. The Examiner notes that in Miller
the fuel injection itself is discussed in col. 8,11. 30-34: “Flow 14
then passes into exhaust chamber 62 where it combines with the
flow from bypass section 50. An afterburner 64 can provide
additional fuel which can be ignited to increase the energy of
flow 14. Flow 14 is then expelled from engine 42 through exit
66 as an exhaust flow.”
Id. at 2—3. The Examiner reasons that “if the fuel flow ‘can be ignited,’ then
it is not auto-igniting” and further explains that in Miller “the (pulsed) cross
flow is configured to avoid shock waves, also showing that the injectors are
configured to avoid auto ignition.” Id. at 3 (citing Miller 11:28—48).
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s reasoning or explain why Miller’s
flow 14 does not create a shear gradient in accordance with Appellants’
definition of this term as set forth in the Specification. We further note that
Miller shows the spray jet formed by the pulsed cross flow in Figure 1 which
5
Appeal 2015-005190
Application 12/224,482
is described as showing “[ijnjector 24 providing] a pulsed fluidic cross flow
to flow field 12.” Miller 6:16—17 (emphasis omitted). Thus, Appellants do
not apprise us of error.
Appellants further argue that “Miller does not teach or suggest any
decreasing speed over an edge region from a jet spray interior to a jet spray
exterior.” Appeal Br. 6. However, the claims at issue do not require
decreasing speed over an edge region from a jet spray interior to a jet spray
exterior. See Appeal Br. 8—11. Rather, the claims require a shear gradient.
See id. The Examiner finds that “[t]he difference in fluid properties and
directions inherently causes a shear gradient at the interface between the
injected fluid and the fluid into which said injected fluid is injected.” Ans. 3
(emphasis omitted). Appellants do not contest this finding. Thus,
Appellants do not apprise us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
19—25 and 27-40 as set forth in Rejections 11—IV.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 19—25 and 27-40 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
6