Ex Parte Kirsopp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2016

12627528 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/627,528 11130/2009
15904 7590 02/12/2016
Miller, Matthias & Hull, LLP-Pratt & Whitney
c/o: Miller, Matthias & Hull, LLP
One North Franklin Street
Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Philip J. Kirsopp
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.
PA-0010850-US 4242
EXAMINER
MANTYLA, MICHAEL B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2016 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):
tmiller@millermatthiashull.com
bmatthias@millermatthiashull.com
mloye@millermatthiashull.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP J. KIRSOPP, AARON J. DORNBACK, and
JAMES B. HOKE
Appeal2013-010814
Application 12/627,528
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Philip J. Kirsopp et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "a heat shield panel
arrangement for use in double wall gas turbine combustors." Spec. para. 2.
Appeal2013-010814
Application 12/627,528
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A combustor module for a gas turbine engme,
compnsmg:
a first annular liner assembly extending along a
longitudinal axis, the first annular liner assembly comprising a
first annular support shell and a plurality of first heat shield
panels coupled to the first annular support shell, the first heat
shield panels forming a segmented ring defining a plurality of
first axial seams therebetween;
a bulkhead coupled to the first annular liner assembly, the
bulkhead providing a plurality of fuel nozzles for passing a first
mass flow comprising fuel and air;
a second annular liner assembly coupled to the bulkhead,
the second annular liner assembly in spaced-apart generally
coaxial relationship from the first annular liner assembly by a
channel height H, the second annular liner assembly comprising
a plurality of air admittance holes each having a mean diameter
D, each air admittance hole extending along a hole axis, and each
hole axis being offset from one of the first axial seams by an
equal distance S.
EVIDENCE
Snyder US 6,606,861 B2 Aug. 19, 2003
Pacheco-Tougas US 2003/0213250 Al Nov. 20, 2003
Coughlan US 2005/0086940 Al Apr. 28, 2005
Boston US 2008/0230997 Al Sept. 25, 2008
Arthur H. Lefebvre, GAS TURBINE COMBUSTION, Second
Ed., pp. 111-115, Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, 1998
("Lefebvre").
2
Appeal2013-010814
Application 12/627,528
REJECTIONS
Appellants appeal from the Final Action, dated September 18, 2012,
which contained the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-14, and 18-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Snyder, Boston, and Pacheco-Tougas.
2. Claims 3, 4, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Snyder, Boston, Pacheco-Tougas, and Lefebvre.
3. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Snyder,
Boston, Pacheco-Tougas, and Coughlan.
ANALYSIS
In the Final Action, the Examiner found that Snyder teaches the
combustor module of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, except that
"Snyder fails to teach that each hole axis is offset from one of the first axial
seams by an equal distance." Final Act. 2-3, 6-7. The Examiner proposed
modifying Snyder, in view of Boston, so that the seams between each heat
shield of the outer liner are circumferentially aligned with a seam between
each heat shield of the inner liner. Id. at 4, 8. The Examiner proposed
modifying Snyder's panels to align the seams, as taught by Boston, "in order
to allow for thermal expansion, and the dampening of vibrations of the
combustor." Id. (citing Boston, para. 10, 11. 8-13). The Examiner proposed
further modifying Snyder in view of Pacheco-Tougas, to offset the air
penetration holes from areas that do not contain dilution holes and to offset
each hole axis to be an equal distance from the seams of the inner heat
panels. Id. at 5, 8-9.
3
Appeal2013-010814
Application 12/627,528
In the Answer, the Examiner maintained the proposed modification of
Snyder's combustor with the teachings of Boston and Pacheco-Tougas, but
provided a different reason for the proposed modification of Snyder with the
teachings of Boston. Examiner's Answer, dated June 12, 2013 ("Ans."),
at 7. In particular, the Examiner determined that it would have been obvious
to modify Snyder to align the seams, as taught by Boston, "in order to keep
the combustor liner from degrading." Id. (citing Spec., para. 3 9, 11. 1-11 ).
Appellants argue that "the combination of Snyder, Boston, and
Pacheco-Tougas is improper because the [rejection] rel[ies] on information
gleaned solely from Appellant's specification" and thus relies on
"impermissible hindsight." Br. 18; id. at 20 (arguing that "neither Snyder,
Boston, [ n ]or Pacheco-Tougas even mention[ s] any kind of relationship
between air admittance holes in the second liner assembly and axial seams in
the first liner assembly") (emphasis omitted). We agree that the Examiner
failed to articulate adequate reasoning based on rational underpinning to
explain why one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have been led to modify Synder' s combustor with the teachings of
Boston.
Neither the reason provided by the Examiner in the Final Action, nor
the reason provided in the Examiner's Answer, to modify Snyder with the
teaching of Boston is adequate. First, the reason provided in the Final
Action relies on paragraph 10 of Boston. Paragraph 10 of Boston teaches
using a brush seal to engage a surface of thermal protective elements (i.e.,
heat shields) so as to configure the combustion chamber to prevent "cooling
4
Appeal2013-010814
Application 12/627,528
air for cooling of the protective elements from get[ting] into the combustion
chamber" despite the fact that the protective elements are subjected to large
thermal movements and vibrations. Boston, para. 10; Fig. 1. It is Boston's
seal, and not the alignment of seams of the first and second annular liners,
that prevents cooling air from entering the combustion chamber. Although
Boston shows the seams radially aligned in Figure 3, it does not discuss the
alignment of the seams or associate any benefit or advantage to such a
configuration. Boston fails to disclose that alignment of the seams of the
first and second annular liners "allow[ s] for thermal expansion" or
"dampening of vibrations of the combustor" as found by the Examiner. For
these reasons, we find that the Examiner's initial reason to modify Snyder
with the teachings of Boston lacks rational underpinning.
Second, the reason provided in the Examiner's Answer for the
proposed modification of Snyder with Boston relies on impermissible
hindsight. The reason provided in the Answer cites to a teaching in
Appellants' Specification for the reason to combine (i.e., to prevent
degradation of the inner liner). Ans. 7 (citing Spec., para. 39). This cited
portion of Appellants' Specification describes that air admittance holes 78
through the outer liner assembly 28 are circumferentially offset from the
axial seams 54 in the opposing inner heat shield panels 48, 50 by a distance
S to avoid formation of a hot spot at seams, which could cause degradation
of the inner liner. The Examiner, in this case, improperly relied on
knowledge about the relationship between the position of the air admittance
holes in the outer liner assembly and the position of the axial seams in the
5
Appeal2013-010814
Application 12/627,528
opposing inner liner assembly gleaned from Appellants' disclosure to
reconstruct the claimed subject matter. See Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966) (warning against a "temptation to read
into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue"), cited with
approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); see also
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (warning against
reconstruction that includes "knowledge gleaned only from applicant's
disclosure"). For these reasons, we find that the Examiner's reason to
modify Snyder with the teachings of Boston, 1 as presented in the Answer,
also is deficient.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11, or their respective dependent claims 2, 5-8,
10, 12-14, and 18-21, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Snyder, Boston, and Pacheco-Tougas. The Examiner relies on the same
deficient reasoning for the proposed modification of Snyder with the
teaching of Boston in the second and third grounds of rejection of dependent
claims 3, 4, 9, and 15-1 7. Final Act. 11-12. As such, for the same reasons
explained above, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of these
dependent claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21 is REVERSED.
1 We do not reach Appellants' arguments against the proposed modification
of Snyder with the teaching of Pacheco-Tougas.
6
Appeal2013-010814
Application 12/627,528
rnsc
REVERSED
7