Ex Parte Taylor

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2013

11002382 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte CURTIS L. TAYLOR
____________________
Appeal 2011-002693
Application 11/002,382
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Curtis L. Taylor (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 17, 18, 21-22, 27, 29, and
30. Claims 4-16, 19, 20, 24-26, and 28 have been withdrawn. The
Examiner has neither rejected nor objected to claim 23.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Dependent claim 23 has been neither rejected nor objected to as dependent
upon a rejected base claim and is therefore not before us on appeal. Final
Appeal 2011-002693
Application 11/002,382
2
We affirm-in-part.
The claims are directed to a burner assembly for combining oxygen
and fuel to produce a flame. Claims 1 and 21, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A burner assembly for combining oxygen and
fuel to produce a flame, the burner assembly comprising
a fuel supply system including a solid-fuel conduit
formed to include a fuel transport passageway and
mixing means for mixing a stream of oxygen with
fluidized, pulverized, solid fuel conducted through the
fuel transport passageway prior to combustion to produce
a mixture that can be ignited in a flame chamber to
produce a flame, wherein the mixing means includes an
oxygen flow passage and a constant-velocity oxygen-fuel
nozzle positioned to lie in the oxygen flow passage and
wherein
the constant-velocity oxygen-fuel nozzle is formed
to include
an oxygen-fuel transport passageway,
a fuel inlet opening located to admit fluidized,
pulverized, solid fuel discharged from the fuel transport
passageway into the oxygen-fuel transport passageway,
an oxygen-fuel outlet opening located to discharge
an oxygen-fuel mixture into the flame chamber,
upstream oxygen-injection holes arranged to
conduct oxygen flowing in the oxygen flow passage into
the oxygen-fuel transport passageway to mix with
fluidized, pulverized, solid fuel flowing in the oxygen-

Office Action mailed April 25, 2006; Non-final Office Action mailed
November 23, 2005. The listing of claim 23 on the Office Action Summary
(Form PTOL-326) for the Final Office Action (or the Non-Final Office
Action) as being among the rejected claims is insufficient to inform
Appellant of the basis of any alleged rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2).
Appeal 2011-002693
Application 11/002,382
3
fuel transport passageway toward the oxygen-fuel outlet
opening to establish a combustible oxygen-fuel mixture
flowing in the oxygen-fuel transport passageway and
exiting through the oxygen-fuel outlet opening, and
a flow-expansion section located in the oxygen-
fuel transport passageway between the fuel inlet opening
and the oxygen-fuel outlet opening and configured to
provide means in the oxygen-fuel transport passageway
for decelerating flow of fuel and oxygen in the oxygen-
fuel transport passageway to cause the oxygen-fuel
mixture exiting the oxygen-fuel transport passageway
through the oxygen-fuel outlet opening to have a velocity
that is about equal to a velocity of fuel entering the
oxygen-fuel transport passageway through the fuel inlet
opening even though oxygen is discharged into the
oxygen-fuel transport passageway through the upstream
oxygen-injection holes.
21. A burner assembly for combining oxygen and
fuel to produce a flame, the burner assembly comprising
a fuel supply system including a solid-fuel conduit
formed to include a fuel transport passageway and
mixing means for mixing a stream of oxygen with
fluidized, pulverized, solid fuel conducted through the
fuel transport passageway prior to combustion to produce
a mixture that can be ignited in a flame chamber to
produce a flame, wherein the mixing means includes an
outer tube, the solid-fuel conduit extends into the outer
tube to define an oxygen flow passage therebetween, the
mixing means further includes a oxygen-fuel nozzle
coupled to the solid-fuel conduit to receive fluidized,
pulverized, solid fuel discharged from the solid-fuel
conduit and formed to include oxygen-injection means
for admitting a stream of oxygen flowing through the
oxygen flow passage into a stream of fluidized,
pulverized, solid fuel flowing through the oxygen-fuel
nozzle, the oxygen-fuel nozzle includes a small-diameter
inlet section having a small inner diameter and having an
inner wall defining a high-velocity passageway, a large-
Appeal 2011-002693
Application 11/002,382
4
diameter outlet section having a relatively larger inner
diameter and an inner wall defining a low-velocity
passageway, and an expansion section arranged to
interconnect the small-diameter inlet section and the
large-diameter outlet section and conduct fluidized,
pulverized, solid fuel through a flow-decelerating
passageway formed in the expansion section from the
high-velocity passageway into the low-velocity
passageway, and the expansion section is formed to
include the oxygen-injection means.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Suwa
Gitman
Olsen
US 4,928,605
US 5,062,789
US 5,299,512
May 29, 1990
Nov. 5, 1991
Apr. 5, 1994
REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Gitman. Ans. 3-4.
2. Claims 1-3 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gitman. Ans. 4-6.
3. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gitman and Suwa. Ans. 6-7.
4. Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gitman and Olsen. Ans. 7-8.
OPINION
Anticipation of claims 21 and 22 by Gitman
Appellant argues for reversing the rejection of claim 21 by contending
that “Gitman does not disclose ‘mixing means for mixing a stream of
Appeal 2011-002693
Application 11/002,382
5
oxygen with fluidized, pulverized, solid fuel conducted through the fuel
transport passageway prior to combustion.’”2 App. Br. 7. Appellant
contends that Gitman mixes fuel and oxygen in its combustion chamber 27,
the location where combustion occurs. App. Br. 7-8. Because Gitman
mixes oxygen and fuel in the location where combustion occurs, Appellant
reasons that this mixing does not occur “prior to combustion” as recited in
claim 21. We disagree.
Appellant recognizes that fuel and oxygen must mix “prior to
combustion” to enable combustion to occur. See Spec., para. [0005]
(describing conventional mixing of fuel and air in proper ratio before
igniting mixture to produce flame). Thus, even though Gitman’s mixing of
fuel and oxygen occurs in the combustion chamber, that mixing must still
occur “prior to combustion.” We, therefore agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Gitman’s Venturi conduits 41 that transport oxygen into the
throat area 26 of the combustion chamber 27 (Ans. 3) meet the recited
limitations on the claimed “mixing means.” Appellant proffers no separate
argument for reversing the rejection of dependent claim 22. For these
reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22.
Obviousness of claims 1-3 and 27 over Gitman
Appellant contends that Gitman fails to describe the “flow expansion
section … for decelerating flow of fuel and oxygen … to have a velocity that
is about equal to a velocity of fuel entering the oxygen-fuel transport
passageway.” App. Br. 8. We agree. The Examiner responds that

2 Appellant also contends that claim 21 requires “an oxygen-fuel nozzle
(which is stated to be prior to combustion)” as a basis for distinguishing
Gitman. However, we see no language in claim 21 requiring the “oxygen-
fuel nozzle” to “be prior to combustion.”
Appeal 2011-002693
Application 11/002,382
6
Appellant’s “constant-velocity oxygen-fuel nozzle includes no more than
what is shown in Gitman.” Ans. 12. The Examiner identifies no disclosure
in Gitman to support this finding. Our own review of Gitman fails to
identify any description of how the velocity of the fuel-oxygen mixture
changes as it passes through Gitman’s throat area 26, diverging nozzle
portion 28, or the distal opening of combustion chamber 27 in nose 29 of the
burner. The Examiner finds that Gitman’s flow-expansion section “would
necessarily decelerate the flow of fuel and oxygen.” Ans. 2. However, the
Examiner enters no findings directed to flow deceleration to a velocity that
is about equal to a velocity of fuel entering the oxygen-fuel transport
passageway, as called for in claims 1 and 27. Moreover, we find no
description of constant velocity flows in the flow-expansion section of
Gitman’s burner. For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-3 and 27.
Obviousness of claims 17 and 18 over Gitman and Suwa
Claims 17 and 18 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1.
We have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The Examiner’s
application of Suwa does not make up for the deficiency in the rejection of
claim 1. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 17 and 18.
Obviousness of claims 29 and 30 over Gitman and Olsen
Claims 29 and 30 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 27.
We have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27. The Examiner’s
application of Olsen does not make up for the deficiency in the rejection of
claim 1. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 29 and 30.
Appeal 2011-002693
Application 11/002,382
7
DECISION
For the reasons stated above, we:
1. AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gitman;
2. REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gitman;
3. REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gitman and Suwa; and
4. REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29 and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gitman and Olsen.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh