Ex Parte Johns et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12768385 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121768,385 04/27/2010
30024 7590 10/04/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Richard Johns
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.
222368/839-1997 (AMK) 5508
EXAMINER
DU GER, JASON H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID RICHARD JOHNS and
CRAIG STEVEN HUMANCHUK
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and MARK A. GEIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David Richard Johns and Craig Steven Humanchuk ("Appellants")
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 12-15. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM, designating the affirmance a new ground of rejection,
and enter A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
1 Claims 2, 4, and 11 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 12, 13 (Claims App.).
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter, with the key
disputed limitation italicized.
1. A combustion section for a gas turbine including
rotating buckets that are driven by products of combustion from
the combustion section, the combustion section comprising:
a casing defining a chamber;
a plurality of combustor cans disposed in the casing and
oriented in an annular pattern, wherein the combustor cans are
angled tangentially relative to an axial flow direction; and
a plurality of transition pieces each one coupled with one
of the combustor cans and directing the products of combustion
from the combustor cans into contact with the rotating buckets,
wherein the transition pieces are angled tangentially relative to
the axial flow direction.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable overBancalari (US 2007/0017225 Al; pub. Jan.
25, 2007) and Tiemann (US 6,684,620 B2; iss. Feb. 3, 2004). Ans. 2.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bancalari, Tiemann, and Wagner (US 2,945,672; iss. July
19, 1960). Ans. 7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' invention is directed to "a combustion section for a gas
turbine including structure for turning air flow into the turbine." Spec. i-f 1.
2 The Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is withdrawn. Final Act. 2; Ans. 7-8.
2
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
The combustion section includes a combustor can and a transition piece that
leads to a turbine. Id. at Fig. 1. A first stage nozzle can be employed
between the transition piece and the turbine to tum air flow exiting the
transition piece in a circumferential direction and direct the flow into the
turbine. See Spec. i-f 3; cf Bancalari Fig. 3. First stage nozzles must be high
strength and require a complex support and cooling system, and may
decrease engine performance. Spec. i-fi-1 3--4. Appellants' Specification
states that the objective of the invention is to tum airflow exiting the
transition piece in a circumferential direction and into the turbine "without
the complications and related costs and damage risks associated with first
stage [nozzles]." Id. i-f 5.
To accomplish this, the Specification states that "transition pieces
direct the products of combustion ... into contact with the rotating buckets"
of the turbine "to shorten the gas turbine." Spec. i-fi-16, 15. We understand
the turbine to be shortened due, at least in part, to the removal of the first
stage nozzle, which is not needed because the transition pieces tum the air
flow in a circumferential direction and direct the flow into the turbine. See
id. f 21.
Figure 2 of Appellants' Specification illustrates transition pieces 36
angled to direct airflow in accordance with Appellants' invention. The
Specification states that the transition pieces are angled "tangentially relative
to the annular pattern of combustor cans 34 (in an X-Y plane, with the Z axis
into the page in FIG. 2)" and "axially in a flow direction (i.e., toward the
turbine buckets) as shown in FIG. 3 (in the Y-Z plane, with the X axis into
the page in FIG. 3)" to "effect a proper angle of incidence to extract work
from the rotating buckets" of the turbine. Spec. i-f 16. It is our understanding
3
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
that the benefits of the angled transition pieces discussed in paragraph 17 of
Appellants' Specification (e.g., decreased combustor length and reduced
pressure loss) are derived from the transition pieces obviating the need for a
first stage nozzle in the turbine.
Relative to pending claims 6, 7, and 15, Appellants' Specification
presents an alternative arrangement in Figure 4, wherein the transition pieces
3 6 include throttling vanes 3 8 that are formed by contouring the sides of the
transition piece. Spec. i-f 18. We understand the throttling vanes 38 to be a
portion of the angled transition piece, rather than an element of a turbine
downstream therefrom.
Relative to pending claim 5, Appellants' Specification presents
another alternative arrangement in Figure 5, wherein ends of the transition
pieces 36 are turned "possibly up to 30Q or more, to give the required overall
turning." Spec. i-f 19.
The Examiner finds that Bancalari discloses many limitations of the
pending claims. Final Act. 3. Indeed, Bancalari discloses a gas turbine
combustor with a casing (or shell 28) for annularly-oriented combustor cans
32 and respective transition pieces (or ducts 92, 94) that are angled to
obviate the need for a first stage nozzle (or first stage vanes 7 6) in the
turbine. Bancalari i-fi-1 2---6 (describing the basic combustion turbine
components shown in Figure 1), and i-fi-145, 47 (describing the embodiment
of Figures 4 and 5). Regarding the combustor, Bancalari states that it "may
be inclined in the radial or circumferential [i.e., tangential] direction, or
both." Id. i-f 49.
Bancalari' s Figure 4 is a view of transition ducts 92, 94, which is
similar to the view presented in Appellants' Specification, Figure 2 (i.e., it is
4
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
a view of an annular ring of transition ducts along a longitudinal axis of the
turbine). Comparison ofBancalari's Figure 4 and Figure 2 of the
Specification assists us in correlating the orientation of Bancalari' s duct with
the claimed combustor cans, which have been referred to differently in the
references. In Bancalari' s Figure 4, its "longitudinal axis" extends out of the
page (Bancalari i-f 4 7), and thus we understand it to be the same as
Appellants' Z-axis (Spec. Fig. 3). Bancalari's radial direction 104 extends
radially outwardly from its longitudinal axis (Bancalari i-f 4 7), and thus we
understand it to be the same as Appellants' Y-axis (Spec. Fig. 3). Lastly, we
understand Bancalari' s circumferential or tangential direction 106 (Bancalari
i-f 47) to be the same as Appellants' X-axis (Spec. Fig. 3). As disclosed by
Bancalari regarding the transition duct 92 shown in its Figures 4 and 5, "the
outlet 100 in the transition duct body 96 of a transition duct 92 ... is offset
from the inlet 98 in all three coordinate directions -the longitudinal
direction, the radial direction and the tangential direction." Id. Considering
the above correlation of dimensions, Bancalari' s transition duct is therefore
angled in an X-Y plane (or tangentially (Spec. i-f 16)) and in a Y-Z plane (or
axially in a flow direction (id.)). The angled transition duct discharges gas
flow at an angle (e.g., an angle denoted by arrow 150 illustrated in
Bancalari' s Figure 8) "appropriate for direct routing to the first stage blade
array 128," and "in the range of about 40 degrees to about 85 degrees."
Bancalari i-f 60. Based on the above findings, we consider this discharge
angle of Bancalari' s combustor cans and transition pieces "to effect a
predetermined angle of incidence to extract work with the rotating buckets,"
as required claims 3, 8, and 12.
5
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
Based on the above findings that ( 1) Bancalari' s transition duct is
angled in the same planes, and (2) the discharge angle of Bancalari's
combustor cans and transition pieces effects a predetermined angle of
incidence to the turbine buckets, we determine that Bancalari teaches or
suggests each and every limitation of claims 1, 3, 8-10, and 12-15.
Regarding claim 5, we reverse the rejection of claim 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bancalari and Tiemann, pro
forma, without addressing the merits of that rejection, because a
determination of obviousness would require speculation as to the scope of
the claims for the reason set forth in the new ground of rejection below. See
In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862---63 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the Board
erred in affirming a rejection of indefinite claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
because the rejection was based on speculative assumptions as to the
meaning of the claims).
Claims 6 and 7 recite "the plurality of transition pieces compris[ ing]
throttling vanes." As set forth above, we understand the claimed throttling
vanes 38 to be an aspect of the angled transition piece 36 (Spec. Fig. 4),
rather than an element of the downstream turbine. A definition for the term
"throttling vanes" is not set forth in Appellants' Specification (including the
claims and written description) or the arguments in Appellants' Appeal and
Reply Briefs. The Specification illustrates a throttling vane 38 in Figure 4,
and describes the throttling vanes as being "formed by contouring the sides
of the transition piece." Spec. i-f 18. Appellants argue that throttling vanes
"help straighten and accelerate flow to make it ideal for the downstream
bucket stage." Reply Br. 3; see also Spec. i-f 18. Lacking any definition of a
throttling vane that differentiates its structure from that of Bancalari' s
6
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
transition piece 92, and because Bancalari' s transition piece also directs flow
to make it ideal for the downstream bucket stage, we find that the contoured
walls of Bancalari' s transition piece comprise the claimed "throttling vanes."
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 3, 8-10, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bancalari and Tiemann. Similarly, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bancalari, Tiemann, and Wagner. The rejections do not rely on any
erroneous fact finding by the Examiner. Because we base our decision to
affirm the rejections on new findings, we designate our affirmances as a new
grounds of rejection, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) so
as to afford Appellants a fair opportunity to respond. The obviousness
rejection of claim 5 is not sustained.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Independent claims 1 and 7 recite the transition pieces being "angled
tangentially relative to an axial flow direction." Independent claim 10
similarly recites "angling the transition pieces tangentially relative to the
axial flow direction." The Specification, however, only states that the
transition pieces are "angled tangentially relative to the annular pattern of
combustor cans" and "angled axially in a flow direction (i.e., toward the
turbine buckets) as shown in FIG. 3 (in the Y-Z plane, with the X axis into
the page in FIG. 3)." Spec. i-f 16. There is thus a discrepancy between the
angling of the transition pieces as described in the Specification with
7
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
reference to Figure 3, and the claimed angling of the transition pieces.
Considering this discrepancy, one skilled in the art would not be able to
determine an accurate scope of independent claims 1, 7, and 10, or
dependent claims 3, 5, 6, and 12-15 that depend therefrom.
Based on the indefiniteness caused by this discrepancy, and the
Specification not addressing the angling of the combustor cans3, even if this
limitation is considered to be supported by the written description, one
skilled in the art would be unable to determine a scope of the combustor
cans being angled "tangentially relative to an axial flow direction" as recited
in independent claims 1, 7, 8, and 10, which limitation is incorporated into
claims 3, 5, 6, 9, and 12-15 that depend therefrom.
Claim 5 recites that "the ends of the plurality of transition pieces are
turned up to 30°." This is discussed in the Specification at paragraph 19,
which refers to the distinct embodiment of Figure 5 as "an embodiment with
the transition pieces turned."4 Appellants provide no label or description for
the dashed line from which the angle of OQ-30Q is measured. In addition, one
skilled in the art would not be able to ascertain, from the single view of
Figure 5, precisely where the dashed line sits with respect to the illustrated
transition piece. We therefore determine that one skilled in the art would not
3 Although the Specification states that "[a]ngling of the combustor in the
tangential direction allows the combustor to provide all or a portion of the
turning effect that is typically applied in the first stage nozzle of the
turbine," this reference is to the overall combustor, which includes both the
combustor cans and the transition pieces, and only angling of the transition
pieces is discussed thereafter. Spec. i-f 17.
4 The transition piece illustrated in Figure 5 is a separate embodiment from
the embodiment illustrated in Figure 4, and both Figures 4 and 5 appear to
be separate embodiments from Figures 2 and 3. It is thus unclear what
aspects of Figures 2--4 can be attributed to the embodiment of Figure 5.
8
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
understand what the ends of the transition pieces of claim 5 are turned up
relative to, or what direction is "up." Claim 5 is therefore indefinite.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 3, 8-10, and 12-15 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bancalari and Tiemann, designating
the affirmance a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bancalari and Tiemann.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bancalari, Tiemann, and Wagner, designating the
affirmance a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
We enter a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph against claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 12-15.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
9
Appeal2014-007304
Application 12/768,385
Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the
Examiner. ...
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
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; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
10