Ex Parte Suemitsu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

13124989 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
13/124,989 04/19/2011 Nobuo Suemitsu 149342 1326
25944 7590
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
LIN, KO-WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
j armstrong @ oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NOBUO SUEMITSU, SADAYUKI MUTO,
SHINICHI TODA, and MINORU IGARASHI
Appeal 2016-001412
Application 13/124,989
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nobuo Suemitsu et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Ito (JP 05-272704, pub. Oct. 19, 1993), Ichinose
(JP 06-050507, pub. Feb. 22, 1994), and Murase (JP 06-241407, pub. Aug.
30, 1994). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-001412
Application 13/124,989
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 7 and 15 are independent. Claim 7, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. An upside-down type low NOx boiler comprising:
a vertical combustion chamber;
the vertical combustion chamber including:
a high-temperature reductive combustion zone provided to
an upper portion of the combustion chamber and surrounded by
a refractory material and having a burner;
a low-temperature oxidative combustion zone provided
below the high-temperature reductive combustion zone and
surrounded by a water wall and having a second-step combustion
air nozzle;
a combustion gas outlet port provided below the low-
temperature oxidative combustion zone; and
an ash discharge mechanism provided to a bottom portion
of the combustion chamber and connected with a steam drum and
a non-heated downcomer pipe for cooling the low-temperature
oxidative combustion zone,
wherein the burner combusts a low-quality fuel under a
high-temperature reductive atmosphere in the high-temperature
reductive combustion zone, so as to produce a combustion gas,
and
wherein the second-step combustion air nozzle supplies a
second-step combustion air having a temperature lower than a
temperature of the combustion gas, so as to further combust a
partly combusted gas flowed downward from the high-
temperature reductive combustion zone, under a low-
temperature oxidative atmosphere,
wherein the combustion gas is flowed out from the
combustion gas outlet port, and an ash that is accumulated on a
furnace bottom portion of the combustion chamber is discharged,
during the operation of the furnace, by using the ash discharge
mechanism, and
wherein a narrowed portion for reducing the horizontal
cross section of the combustion chamber by 20%-50% is
2
Appeal 2016-001412
Application 13/124,989
provided between the high-temperature reductive combustion
zone and the low-temperature oxidative combustion zone.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner determines that Ito, Ichinose, and Murase disclose or
suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 7. See Final Act. 2—4. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Ito discloses “a second- step combustion
air nozzle (6)” that “supplies a second-step combustion air having a
temperature lower than a temperature of the combustion gas.” Id. at 2.
Appellants contend that “Ito does not say that by introducing air, the
temperature will decrease.” See Appeal Br. 23-24 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants further note Ichinose teaches an increase in temperature rather
than a decrease, such that Ichinose does not cure this deficiency in Ito. See
id. at 24.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that in Ichinose
the combustion gas “loses heat as it goes through the superheater 108 and
economizer 109 and air heater 111.” Ans. 11. Based on this understanding,
the Examiner argues that “[b]y the time combustion gas reaches air heater,
the combustion gas has a lower temperature than it had when it was at the
gas exhaust port 130.” Id. The Examiner further explains that
The ambient air gets heat energy from the ‘cooled’ combustion
gas via air heater 111 and passes through air duct 116 before the
ambient air exits the boiler wall. While the ambient air passes
through air duct, it would inherently loses some heat to the
environment due to heat exchanging with surrounding
environment.
3
Appeal 2016-001412
Application 13/124,989
Id. Based on this reasoning, the Examiner concludes that “the ambient air
fed to the second-step combustion has a temperature lower than a
temperature of the combustion gas.” Id.
Responding to the Examiner’s new explanation and findings,
Appellants note that “the Examiner fails to consider the burner 128 of
Ichinose.” Reply Br. 5. Given the presence of burner 128 in line with
Ichinose’s air nozzles 106, Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s assertion
[is] unsupported by Ichinose.” Id.
Ichinose1 describes reference numeral 128 in Figure 1 as a “burner for
temperature control.” Ichinose ^ 15. Ichinose further describes burner 128
as being equipped on air throwing nozzle 106. See id. Thus, contrary to the
Examiner’s assertion, it appears that the air introduced by nozzle 106 is
heated by burner 128 prior to introduction into the second stage combustion
zone. See id. Fig. 1. Ichinose does not indicate what temperature the air is
heated to before it is introduced via nozzle 6; however, given the location of
burner 128, the Examiner’s reasoning about inherent heat loss as the air
passes through the duct is unfounded. We have been instructed that “we
may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination when
there are deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases
supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 7, and claims 9, 10, and 12, which depend therefrom. The rejection of
claim 15 relies upon the same unsupported reasoning discussed supra.
1 We refer to the machine translation of Ichinose filed with the instant
Application.
4
Appeal 2016-001412
Application 13/124,989
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15,
and claims 16-21, which depend therefrom for the same reason.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15-21 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
5