Ex Parte Ritland et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12712522 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/712,522 02/25/2010 David M. Ritland 2009P19164US 2867
28524 7590 03/02/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID M. RITLAND and TIMOTHY A. FOX
Appeal 2015-002122
Application 12/712,522
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—20, which
are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Siemens Energy, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-002122
Application 12/712,522
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. An annular fluid distribution device for distributing fluid
into a gaseous flow comprising:
a first fluid distribution manifold comprising a first fluid
inlet, first fluid outlets, and an annular shaped first passageway
providing fluid communication between the first fluid inlet and
the first fluid outlets, wherein the first fluid outlets inject a first
fluid into the gaseous flow;
a second fluid distribution manifold, comprising a second
fluid inlet, second fluid outlets, and an annular shaped second
passageway providing fluid communication between the second
fluid inlet and the second fluid outlets, wherein the second fluid
outlets inject a second fluid into the gaseous flow, and wherein
the second fluid distribution manifold is isolated from the first
fluid distribution manifold within the annular fluid distribution
device,
wherein the first fluid outlets and the second fluid outlets
are disposed on a common fluid outlet plane.
Rejections
Claims 1,2, 7—11, 15—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Banhardt et al. (US 6,189,321 Bl, issued Feb.
20, 2001) (“Banhardt”) and Sharifi et al. (US 6,109,038, issued Aug. 29,
2000) (“Sharifi”). Final Act. 2-7.
Claims 3—6, 12—14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Banhardt, Sharifi, and Moraes (US 7,249,461 B2, issued
July 31, 2007). Final Act. 8—11.
2
Appeal 2015-002122
Application 12/712,522
ISSUE
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants’ contentions is whether the
Examiner has provided sufficient reasoning for combining the teachings of
Banhardt and Sharifi.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Banhardt teaches all limitations of claim 1 except
an annular shaped first passageway and an annular shaped second
passageway, each providing fluid communication with the fluid inlets and
outlets. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Sharifi for teaching these
limitations, and concludes it would have been obvious “to further modify
Banhardt with Sharifi’s fuel distribution in order to reduce emissions as
taught by Sharifi in col. 1,11. 34-42.” Id.
Appellants present several arguments against the combination of
Banhardt and Sharifi. App. Br. 4—9; Reply Br. 3—8. We are not persuaded
by Appellants’ argument that Banhardt teaches a diffusion burner, and that,
therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Banhardt
with teachings from Sharifi, which teaches a pre-mix burner. App. Br. 4—6.
As the Examiner points out, Banhardt’s regulating units provide fuel, air,
and coolant to each burner separately, which mix before combustion. Ans.
4—5 (citing Banhardt Fig. 5).
Appellants contend “Banhardt’s stated goal is to have individual
control of the fuel flow to the burners, and to the ability to replace individual
components, as opposed to replacing the entire device.” App. Br. 6.
Appellants assert that Sharifi teaches the opposite in teaching two manifolds,
which could not provide individual control to thirty burners in Banhardt or
3
Appeal 2015-002122
Application 12/712,522
be individually replaceable. Id. at 6. Thus, Appellants assert, “[t]he
resulting combination eliminates two explicit goals sought by Banhardt and
thus changes the principle of operation of Banhardt.” Id. at 7. Appellants
also argue Banhardt teaches away from a structure that does not provide
individual control or permit replacement of individual components. Id. at 5;
see also Reply Br. 4. Appellants also contend “the Examiner is mixing and
matching elements of the two references in an effort to reach [Appellants’]
claim language, without due regard for the motivation necessary to make the
modification.” App. Br. 8.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not presented
sufficient findings or reasoning for combining the teachings of Banhardt and
Sharifi. Sharifi’s teaching of reduced emissions, which the Examiner
identifies as the reason for combining with Banhardt, is tied to lean fuel/air
ratios that can be achieved by fuel that is widely distributed and very well
mixed into the combustion air. Sharifi col. 1,11. 36—39. Sharifi teaches that
“[t]his can be accomplished by introducing the fuel into the combustion air
in a number of annular pre-mixing passages so that the fuel and air are pre­
mixed prior to their introduction into the combustion zones.” Sharifi col. 1,
11. 39-43. It is unclear, however, how reducing emissions could be achieved
by incorporating Sharifi’s fuel ring into Banhardt. Banhardt’s individual
burner fuel lines and regulating units regulate the amount of fuel, air, and
coolant delivered to each burner. Banhardt col. 2,11. 44-48. As Appellants
point out, replacing Banhardt’s fuel lines with Sharifi’s fuel distribution ring
would provide only two individually controllable manifolds for Banhardt’s
thirty burners, which would no longer be individually controllable. App. Br.
6.
4
Appeal 2015-002122
Application 12/712,522
Under an alternate interpretation of the Examiner’s rejection (see App.
Br. 5—6), each burner in Banhardt would have its own fuel ring as in Sharifi,
which would theoretically allow for additional control of fuel amounts.
Appellants call this interpretation of the rejection the “alternate concept”
(App. Br. 5—7), and the Examiner states in the Answer that Appellants’
“alternate concept” is being used to reject the claims (Ans. 4). The
Examiner’s Answer also states that “[pjlacing the burners of Banhardt on the
fuel distribution ring of Sharifi would provide the advantages of both Sharifi
and Banhardt” (Ans. 5), but this modification is not consistent with
Appellants’ “alternate concept.” Even if the Examiner’s rejection intends
that the burners of Banhardt would each be placed on its own fuel
distribution ring, it is unclear whether or how the air supply lines of
Banhardt would be used in such an arrangement and whether Sharifi’s fuel
ring is intended to be modified such that the fuel outlets are on the same
plane (as recited in independent claims 1,10, and 18) rather than offset one
with another (see Sharifi Figs. 2—3, fuel discharge ports 50 and 52).
Although it is not required that the two references be physically combinable
without modification, without more explanation as to the way in which
specific teachings from Banhardt and Sharifi would be combined, we are
unable to determine whether the advantages of both systems can be obtained
by combining them.
In view of the foregoing, and because the rejections of all claims on
appeal rely on the Examiner’s combination of Banhardt and Sharifi,2 we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 1—20 under § 103(a).
2 Because the issue of whether the Examiner has provided sufficient
reasoning to combine the teachings of Banhardt and Sharifi is dispositive as
5
Appeal 2015-002122
Application 12/712,522
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
REVERSED
to all claims on appeal, we need not reach additional issues raised by
Appellants’ arguments.
6