Ex Parte PODROG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2018

13466125 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/466, 125 05/08/2012 DAVID J. PODROG
106108 7590 07/12/2018
NOV A IP LAW, PLLC
7420 Heritage Village Plaza
Suite 101
Gainesville, VA 20155
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.
PODROG-2012-1 5230
EXAMINER
GONZALEZ, JULIO CESAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2018 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):
jgbrown.nova@gmail.com
novaipoffice@gmail.com
jbrown2941@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID J. PODROG
Appeal 2016-005884
Application 13/466125
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, LILAN REN, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision
finally rejecting claims 1-9 and 31-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed
May 8, 2012 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated May 18, 2015 ("Final"); Appeal
Brief filed Oct. 22, 2015 ("Br."); Examiner's Answer dated Mar. 9, 2016 ("Ans.").
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005884
Application 13/466, 125
Claim 1 is representative of the invention, and reads as follows:
1. A hafnium gas turbine engine comprising:
an X-ray machine,
a mass of hafnium,
a heat exchange apparatus,
and a gas turbine
wherein the X-ray machine is configured such that X-rays from
the X-ray machine will strike the hafnium when the X-ray machine is
activated,
and wherein the mass of hafnium is configured such that
gamma rays from the hafnium are capable of heating a gas within the
heat exchange apparatus,
and wherein the heat exchange apparatus is configured to direct
the heated gas towards the turbine to drive the turbine.
Br. 19, Claims Appendix. Claim 31, the only other independent claim on appeal,
recites "[a] method for driving a gas turbine engine," and includes limitations
similar to those recited in claim 1, e.g., a step of "configuring the mass of hafnium
and heat exchange apparatus so that gamma rays emitted from the hafnium are
capable of heating a gas within the heat exchange apparatus." Br. 22, Claims
Appendix.
The claims stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
follows:
1. claims 1-5, 31-35, and 39 over Diaz (US 2007/0119148 Al, pub. May
31, 2007) in view of Flynt (US 3,831,373, iss. Aug. 27, 1974);
2. claims 6 and 36 over Diaz and Flynt, further in view of Hoffman (US
2008/0104939 Al, pub. May 8, 2008);
3. claims 8 and 38 over Diaz and Flynt, further in view ofNakhamkin (US
5,778,675, iss. July 14, 1998); and
2
Appeal 2016-005884
Application 13/466, 125
4. claims 7 and 37 over Diaz and Flynt, further in view of Merchant (US
2013/0031910 Al, pub. Feb. 7, 2013). Ans. 2-3.
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraphs. Id. at 3.
Diaz discloses a method and system for producing electricity wherein X-rays
generated by an X-ray machine are directed onto a mass of hafnium, causing
liberation of gamma radiation. Diaz ,r 6. The gamma rays, in tum, are directed at a
mass of water in a collecting tank. Id. The gamma rays heat the water to produce
steam which causes a buildup in pressure. Id. Pressurized steam is channeled to a
turbine, which is connected to a current generator. Id.
Flynt discloses a pumped air storage peaking power system comprising a
rotating shaft connecting a compressor and a gas turbine, and a dynamoelectric
machine connected to the gas turbine output shaft. Flynt 3:50, 58---61. Flynt
describes a pumping mode in which the dynamoelectric machine drives the
compressor to pump air to an air storage reservoir. Id. at 5:64---67. Flynt also
discloses a peaking mode in which stored, compressed air from the air storage
reservoir flows through a heat exchanger where it is preheated by gaseous
combustion products from the turbine. Id. at 6:25-30. The preheated air is then
combined with fuel in a combustor to form gaseous combustion products which
drive the turbine. Id. at 6:30-32. Flynt discloses that during the peaking mode, air
flow through the compressor is reduced, thereby reducing power losses in the
system. Id. at 6: 13-18. Flynt further discloses that turbine windage losses that
occur during the pumping mode can be reduced by introducing steam at the turbine
inlet. Id. at 4:65-5:1, 5:9-11. Steam is provided to the turbine by passing water to
a heat exchanger where the water absorbs heat released by compressed air passing
to the reservoir. Id. at 5: 15-19.
3
Appeal 2016-005884
Application 13/466, 125
The Examiner finds Diaz discloses the invention as claimed in independent
claims 1 and 31, with the exception of an explicit disclosure of a heat exchange
apparatus. Final 6-7. The Examiner finds Flynt discloses a power system in
which a heat exchanger is used to heat air prior to combining the air with fuel in a
combustor. Id. at 7. The Examiner further finds Flynt discloses directing
combustion products from the combustor to a turbine which drives a generator. Id.
The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have modified Diaz's system and method to use a heat exchange apparatus
for the purpose of providing an improved peaking power system as disclosed by
Flynt. Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner's findings are insufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness as to independent claims 1 and 31. See Br. 16-18.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that neither Diaz nor Flynt discloses or suggests
configuring a mass of hafnium in a manner that is capable of heating a gas within a
heat exchange apparatus. See id. As explained by Appellant, Diaz teaches heating
water in a tank using gamma rays from hafnium. Id. at 16; Diaz ,r 6. Flynt
discloses the use of two heat exchangers: a first heat exchanger wherein water
absorbs heat from compressed air and is converted to steam, and a second heat
exchanger wherein air is pre-heated by gaseous combustion products from the
turbine. Flynt 4:38--49, 5:15-22; see Br. at 17. The Examiner has not explained
with sufficient clarity why one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have
expected the addition of a single heat exchanger to Diaz's system to provide an
improved peaking power system. See Br. 1 7. In this regard, we note that Flynt
discloses improved performance during peaking mode is achieved via a valve that
selectively throttles air to the compressor. See Flynt 3:21-38. Moreover, even
assuming one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Diaz to include a
4
Appeal 2016-005884
Application 13/466, 125
heat exchanger, the Examiner has not explained why the ordinary artisan would
have configured the mass of hafnium used to heat the water in Diaz's system in
such a manner that it would be capable of heating a gas within the heat exchanger,
as required by the claims. See generally, Final 6-7; Ans. 3-7.
The Examiner has not explained how the additional references relied upon in
above-listed grounds of rejection 2--4 cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's
combination of Diaz and Flynt. See Final 8-10. Accordingly, the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-9 and 31-39 are reversed.
REVERSED
5