Ex Parte Senior et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

12226552 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
12/226,552 03/19/2010 Peter Senior 2005P19644WOUS 1236
22116 7590 12/22/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
CHAU, ALAIN
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER SENIOR and NIGEL WILBRAHAM
Appeal 2015-003884
Application 12/226,5521
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 16—32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention relates to a pre-mix
combustion system which is to be used in a gas turbine engine and to a
method of operating such a pre-mix combustion system.” Spec. 12.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003884
Application 12/226,552
CLAIMS
Claims 16—32 are on appeal. Claim 16 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
16. A method for operating a gas turbine pre-mix combustion
system, comprising:
mixing a fuel with air for generating a main fuel/air
mixture;
introducing a plurality of streams of the main fuel/air
mixture into a combustion zone;
grouping the streams into a plurality of groups of streams;
impinging at least two of the streams in the groups of
streams on each other in impingement zones by introducing the
at least two of the streams in opposed flow paths;
staggering the impingement zones of the groups of streams
in the combustion zone in a longitudinal axial direction of the
pre-mix combustion system, and
staggering said impingement zones in a radial direction.
Appeal Br. 13.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 16—22 and 24—32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Joshi2 in view of Ho.3
2. The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Joshi in view of Ho and Hellat.4
2 Joshi et al., US 4,928,481, iss. May 29, 1990.
3 Ho et al. US 6,405,536 Bl, iss. June 18, 2002.
4 Hellat et al., US 4,765,146, iss. Aug. 23, 1988.
2
Appeal 2015-003884
Application 12/226,552
DISCUSSION
Claims 16 and 21 are the only independent claims on appeal. With
respect to claim 16, the Examiner finds that Joshi discloses a method for
operating a combustion system with the steps claimed, except that Joshi does
not disclose staggering impingement zones in a radial direction. Final
Act. 2—3 (citing Joshi, Figs. 1, 3). The Examiner finds that Ho teaches
impingement zones caused by holes that are radially staggered (citing Ho,
col. 3,11. 8—19), and the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious “to
combine Joshi’s combustor with Ho’s staggered flow zones in order to
provide the fuel flexibility to use a low-BTU fuel as taught by Ho in col. 1,
11. 6—37.” Final Act. 3. Further, in response to Appellants’ arguments, the
Examiner also concludes that the proposed combination would include the
advantages of both systems including fuel flexibility, flame stabilization, and
the ability to use the system in low power or small turbogenerator
applications as taught by Ho. Ans. 3 (citing Ho, col. 1,11. 13—37). The
Examiner relies on substantially the same findings and conclusions with
respect to claim 21. See Final Act. 4.
We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments and find that the
Examiner’s conclusion lacks the required rational underpinning insofar as
the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to the claimed configuration. See KSR Int'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In particular, we agree with
Appellants that the proposed motivation for the combination, i.e. obtaining
the listed advantages of Ho’s system, does not sufficiently support an
obviousness conclusion on the record before us. See Appeal Br. 7. While
the claimed method and Joshi’s system are directed to introducing multiple
3
Appeal 2015-003884
Application 12/226,552
streams of a fuel/air mixture to create impingement zones, Ho’s airflow
holes 23, 26 only introduce air into the system to first dilute the fuel (holes
26) and then provide combustion air (holes 23). See Ho, col. 2,11. 18—22,
col. 3,11. 8—19. The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how providing
holes for streams of air alone, as in Ho’s system, would or could be added to
Joshi’s system such that the benefits of Ho’s system would be obtained.
Further, in light of the different functions provided by Ho’s air jets and
Joshi’s fuel/air streams, the Examiner has not adequately explained why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate air
holes into Joshi’s system to achieve the claimed method.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 16 and 21. We also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims
17—20 and 22—32 for the same reasons and because the Examiner has not
shown how any of the art of record cures the deficiency in the rejection of
independent claims 16 and 21.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the rejections of
claims 16—32.
REVERSED
4