Ex Parte Krull

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2016

12482898 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/482,898 06/11/2009
30024 7590 02/02/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony Krull
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.
2278711839-2084 (AMK) 8094
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHUONG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2016 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 ANTHONY KRULL
Appeal 2014-000418 1,2
Application 12/482,898
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, "[t]he invention relates to detecting
combustor flashback/flame holding using a temperature sensor." Spec. i-f 1.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed June 11,
2009), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Apr. 4, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 25, 2013), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed Oct. 25, 2012) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed July 25, 2013).
2 "The real party in interest is General Electric Company." Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-000418
Application 12/482,898
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are the only independent claims on appeal. We reproduce
below claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. We also reproduce
below dependent claim 4.
1. A combustor comprising:
a combustor housing defining a combustion chamber having a
plurality of combustion zones;
a plurality of temperature detectors affixed to the combustor
housing and disposed in communication with the combustion
chamber, the plurality of temperature detectors arranged to detect
a temperature in the plurality of combustion zones; and
a controller in communication with the plurality of temperature
detectors, the controller being programmed to determine an
occurrence of a flame holding condition or a flashback condition
in at least one of the plurality of combustion zones based on
signals from the plurality of temperature detectors.
4. A combustor according to claim 1, wherein the combustor
housing comprises a plurality of fuel nozzles, and wherein a
portion of the plurality of temperature detectors is disposed in the
plurality of fuel nozzles and is configured to measure thermal
emissions from the plurality of fuel nozzles.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite;
claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ito (US 6,026,644, iss. Feb. 22, 2000); and
claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ito
alone or with Myhre (US 2008/0083228 Al, pub. Apr. 10, 2008).
See Final Action 2-7.
2
Appeal2014-000418
Application 12/482,898
Indefiniteness rejection
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, stating that
the term "a portion" in claims 4 and 8 is a relative term which
renders the claim[ s] indefinite. The term "a portion" is not
defined by the claim[ s], the specification does not provide a
standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the
scope of the invention. [Thus,] [ w ]hat is meant and encompass
the term "a portion" is unclear.
Final Action 2. We agree with Appellant, however, that the claim limitation
"a portion of the plurality of temperature detectors is disposed in the
plurality of fuel nozzles" in each of claims 4 and 8 is not indefinite, as the
claim limitation understandably requires that "any amount of the plurality of
temperature detectors" are disposed in the fuel nozzles. Appeal Br. 10.
Thus, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection.
Obviousness rejections
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "a plurality of temperature
detectors affixed to the combustor housing and disposed in communication
with the combustion chamber, the plurality of temperature detectors
arranged to detect a temperature in the plurality of combustion zones."
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner initially determines that Ito does not
disclose temperature detectors affixed to the combustor housing, but
since Applicant has not disclose[ d] any special technical features
for such arrangement[,] and both Applicant['s] and Ito['s] ...
temperature detectors are configured to monitor a temperature
rise in the combustion chamber ... [,] designing or arranging
[Ito's] temperature detectors based on user preference to
3
Appeal2014-000418
Application 12/482,898
effectively [sic] a temperature rise in the combustion chamber
would be within a level of ordinary skill in the art.
Final Action 6. We agree with Appellant, however, that in Ito "the
thermocouple is measuring the temperature of the stabilizer itself." Appeal
Br. 11-12, citing Ito col. 14, 11. 6-11. Thus, the Examiner's stated reason for
modifying Ito so that the thermocouples are affixed to the combustor
housing is erroneous, and therefore the Examiner's reason does not have the
required rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness.
See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Regardless, in the Answer the Examiner determines that Ito does, in
fact, disclose temperature detectors affixed to the combustor housing, as
required by claim 1. See Answer 8-10. Specifically, the Examiner
determines that "based on the broadest interpretation, the word 'affix' does
not necessary mean that it has to be ... directly attached, ... [but] the
definition is broad enough to read on indirectly attached." Id. at 8. Even
assuming arguendo that the Examiner's determination is correct, we note
that claim 1 requires that the "the plurality of temperature detectors [are]
arranged to detect a temperature in the plurality of combustion zones."
Appeal Br., Claims App. As discussed above, however, in Ito "the
thermocouple is measuring the temperature of the stabilizer itself." Appeal
Br. 12-13, citing Ito col. 14, 11. 6-11; see also Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner
does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Ito discloses
the claimed temperature detectors. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, or the rejections of claims 2-7 depending from claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-000418
Application 12/482,898
For reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1,
we also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 5 and 9, which
recite similar limitations as claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the rejections
of claims 6-8 that depend on claim 5.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, of claims 4 and 8.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-9.
REVERSED
5