Ex Parte Ols et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

11774701 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111774,701 0710912007 John T. Ols
54549 7590 06/24/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
PA0002760A;
67097-743PUS1
3751
EXAMINER
KIM, CRAIG SANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN T. OLS, STEPHEN K. KRAMER,
and SHEREE R. SWENSON-DODGE 1
Appeal2014-005784
Application 11/774,701
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 14, and 17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005784
Application 11/774,701
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' "invention relates to a gas turbine engine combustor
system, and more particularly, the invention relates to a fuel nozzle having a
sensor to provide feedback control for the combustor system." Spec. i-f 2.
Claim on Appeal
Claims 1 and 17 are the only independent claims on appeal. These
claims, which we reproduce below, are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a combustor including a combustion chamber;
a fuel nozzle configured to deliver fuel to the combustion
chamber; and
a sensor at least partially housed within the fuel nozzle
and configured to sense a parameter outside the fuel nozzle
associated with the fuel delivery, wherein the sensor is a
pressure sensor, wherein the fuel nozzle includes a fuel exit, the
sensor terminating near the fuel exit.
17. A fuel nozzle assembly comprising:
a fuel nozzle providing a housing at least partially
shielding an optical sensor, the sensor configured to detect a
fuel delivery parameter, wherein the fuel nozzle includes a fuel
exit, and an end of the sensor is arranged near the fuel exit;
an optical decoder supported by the housing and in
communication with the optical sensor;
a trim valve supported by the housing and configured to
regulate a flow of fuel to the fuel exit; and
wherein the fuel nozzle, the optical sensor, the optical
decoder and the trim valve provide an integrated unit with the
housing and replaceable as a unitary assembly.
Appeal Br. 6-7 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2014-005784
Application 11/774,701
Examiner's Rejections
I. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Beebe (US 5,423, 175, iss. June 13, 1995) and Myhre (US 2005/0247066 Al,
pub. Nov. 10, 2005) (hereafter "Myhre '066").
II. Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Myhre (US 2006/0000219 Al, pub. Jan. 5, 2006) (hereafter "Myhre '219")
and Beebe.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10
The Examiner finds Beebe teaches all of the elements of claim 1
except a sensor at least partially housed within the fuel nozzle. Final Act. 3
(mailed May 17, 2013). The Examiner finds Myhre '066 teaches a fuel
nozzle with a sensor within the fuel nozzle as depicted in Figures 5 and 6
(fuel nozzle 26 and sensor 80). Id. The Examiner finds that Myhre '066
also teaches placement of the sensor in the fuel nozzle housing in order to
protect it from potential damage due to high temperatures. Ans. 1.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to position Beebe's pressure
sensor within the fuel nozzle, as taught by Myhre '066, in order to provide
the sensor with protection from high temperatures. Final Act. 3; Ans. 1.
Appellants contend that it would not have been obvious to position
Beebe's pressure sensor within its nozzle housing, like the Myhre '066
sensor, because doing so would "isolate the sensor from the reaction zone
associated with the other sensor, which would render Beebe's sensor
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Appeal Br. 3. Similarly,
3
Appeal2014-005784
Application 11/774,701
Appellants argue "moving the sensor to a location remote from these
reaction zones, and surrounding it with structure, would affect detecting
pressure within the zones." Reply Br. 1. Appellants also contend adding an
additional sensor to the fuel nozzle "would unnecessarily add cost and
complexity to Beebe's simpler one sensor configuration." Appeal Br. 3.
The Examiner responds by finding:
The pressure sensor of Beebe would be capable of sensing the
pressure in the combustor of the upstream reaction zone, the
downstream reaction zone or a combination of both the upstream
and downstream reaction zones regardless of the location of the
sensor being in the combustor or in the fuel nozzle (would
continue to read pressure in the combustor from the fuel nozzle).
Ans. 1. Further, the Examiner dismisses Appellants' contentions regarding
additional sensor costs, finding "duplicating sensors and incurring the
adding additional costs and complications at times are worthwhile, by
preventing possible failures of sensors, engine failures would also be
reduced." Ans. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions. Beebe discloses
multiple dynamic pressure sensors in each combustion chamber. Beebe,
5:40-43, 6:6-8 ("The computer receives sensor data from ... chamber
dynamic pressure sensors"). The Examiner's finding that adding another
sensor to Beebe at least partially within the fuel nozzle would not add
prohibitive cost or complexity to the system is reasonable and not
persuasively rebutted by Appellants. Further, even if additional cost and
complexity are added, the Examiner has provided persuasive reasoning that
such increased cost and complexity is acceptable to reduce the chance of
sensor and engine failure.
4
Appeal2014-005784
Application 11/774,701
As cited by Appellants, Beebe discloses that combustion reactions
occur in both the primary and secondary reaction zones in each chamber,
either independently or in combination. Appeal Br. 3 (citing Beebe, 4:45-
47). The Examiner's finding that the modified pressure sensor of Beebe
could be positioned at least partially within the fuel nozzle such that it would
be capable of sensing the pressure in either the upstream or downstream
reaction zone has not been persuasively rebutted by Appellants. Thus, we
disagree with Appellants' contention that partially positioning a sensor in the
fuel nozzle would isolate the sensor from the reaction zone and render
Beebe's sensor unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Further, the Examiner persuasively explains why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been prompted to combine the teachings of the
references in the manner proposed, including providing reasoning with
rational underpinning as to why it would have been obvious to position a
pressure sensor partially within Beebe's fuel nozzle. See Final Act. 3;
Ans. 1. Specifically, the Examiner persuasively establishes that Myhre '066
teaches positioning a sensor at least partially within a fuel nozzle in order to
provide the sensor with protection from high temperatures. See Ans. 1. We
agree with this finding. Similar to Appellants' claimed invention,
Myhre '066 also relates to a gas turbine engine combustor system.
Myhre '066, Abstract. Myhre '066 explains that operating temperatures in
gas turbine combustors can be high, and to avoid cooling the sensor it is
advantageous to embed a sensor in the fuel nozzle as well as treat it with
coatings. Myhre '066 i-fi-18, 9, 12, claims 1, 5.
For the reasons set forth above, and for the reasons provided by the
Examiner, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
5
Appeal2014-005784
Application 11/774,701
§ 103(a) over Beebe and Myhre '066. Because Appellants do not separately
argue claims 3-8 and 10, apart from their dependency from claim 1, we
likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-8 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Beebe and Myhre '066. See Appeal Br. 4.
Claims 14 and 1 7
Claim 1 7 requires, in pertinent part, "wherein the fuel nozzle, the
optical sensor, the optical decoder and the trim valve provide an integrated
unit with the housing and replaceable as a unitary assembly." Appeal Br. 7
(Claims App'x). For the rejection of claim 17, the Examiner relies on the
combination of Myhre '219 and Beebe. Appellants challenge whether the
combination, and specifically Beebe, teaches the above limitations.
The Examiner finds that it was known to have a gas turbine engine
with a combustor and a trim valve. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that
although the claim language requires the four elements form an integrated
unit with the housing and be replaceable as a unitary assembly, "[t]he parts
... are not limited to being installed and uninstalled as a unit." Ans. 2.
Likewise, the Examiner finds "being a sub-assembly of an engine and being
a collection of parts together for use as a unit, it is the intended use for a sub-
assembly to be used in the claimed manner." Id. The Examiner goes on to
find Beebe's collection of parts teaches the claim limitation. Id.
Appellants argue the claim language requires something more than an
assembled collection of parts. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Appellants
recognize that the term "integral with" would not alone require that each
component be formed together as a unitary assembly. Appeal Br. 4; see also
Application of Hotte, 475 F.2d 644, 647 (CCPA 1973) (interpreting the term
"integral" as sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such
6
Appeal2014-005784
Application 11/774,701
means as fastening and welding). Appellants draw a distinction, however, in
the additional language requiring that the elements must also be "replaceable
as a unitary assembly." Appeal Br. 4. Indeed, similar distinctions have been
recognized. Specifically, adding language stating that elements are a single
or unitary assembly may in some instances limit claim scope beyond just
parts formed integral to one another. See, e.g., Carl Schenck, A.G. v.
Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("a single integral and
gaplessly continuous piece" is not obvious in light of similar bolted prior art
structures); Ex parte Priest, Appeal No. 2013-003371 (PTAB May 28, 2015)
("integral with the post as a single unitary body" requires a singularly
formed element). We determine this is such a case.
We do not believe the Examiner has provided adequate support for the
rejection. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"replaceable as a unitary assembly" requires the four elements be formed as
an integral unit such that they are replaceable as a unit. See Appeal Br. 4;
see also Spec. i-f 15 (describing elements "integrated to provide an easily
replaceable unit" which "also reduces external electrical connections"). By
further limiting the structure of the claims to require the four elements (fuel
nozzle, optical sensor, decoder, and trim valve) be formed as "an integrated
unit with the housing" such that they are all "replaceable as a unitary
assembly" was a choice by Appellants to narrow the scope of their claim.
The prior art must teach or suggest replacement of the claimed elements as a
unitary assembly and the record before us is absent of such a finding.
For the reasons set forth above we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myhre '219 and Beebe.
7
Appeal2014-005784
Application 11/774,701
Because claim 14 depends from claim 1 7, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 14.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Beebe and Myhre '066 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Myhre '219 and Beebe is reversed.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 14 and 17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8