Ex Parte Veninger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2017

12742031 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 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.
12/742,031 05/07/2010 Albert Veninger PA0003692U-U73.12-425KL 1469
12208 7590 01/23/2017
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2017 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):
U S PatDocket @ kinney. com
amkoenck @ kinney. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBERT VENINGER, JEFFREY MELMAN,
CHRISTINE BLANCHARD, and BARRY SCHLEIN
Appeal 2015-003176
Application 12/742,031
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Albert Veninger et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 and 21.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-003176
Application 12/742,031
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A gas turbine engine having reduced emissions comprising:
a compressor for providing pressurized air; and
a combustion chamber having:
an inner liner defining a combustion zone for burning a
mixture of fuel and a first portion of the pressurized air, said liner
having a wall with a hot side facing the combustion zone and an
oppositely faced cold side;
a shroud affixed to said inner liner and circumscribing a
portion of said inner liner, said shroud spaced from said cold side
and forming an annulus there between for accepting only a
second portion of the pressurized air therein, and wherein at
operating temperatures said shroud permits flow of the second
portion of the pressurized air in the annulus without entering the
combustion zone; and
a plurality of heat transfer features disposed on said cold
side of said inner liner wall for exchanging heat from said wall
to the second portion of the pressurized air.
REJECTIONS2
1) Claims 1, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glezer (US 2005/0044857 Al, published Mar. 3,
2005) in view of Huth (US 8,245,513 B2, issued Aug. 21, 2012),
or alternatively, in view of Abreu (US 6,314,716 Bl, issued Nov.
13, 2001) and Baudoin (US 2004/0011058 Al, published Jan. 22,
2004).
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1—6 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-003176
Application 12/742,031
2) Claims 2-4 and 8—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glezer in view of Huth, or alternatively, in view
of Abreu, Baudoin, and Nakae (US 2005/0047932 Al, published
Mar. 3, 2005).
3) Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glezer in view of Huth, or alternatively, in view
of Abreu, Baudoin, and Parker (US 2007/0256417 Al, published
Nov. 8, 2007) or Green (US 7,007,482 B2, issued Mar. 7, 2006).
4) Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glezer in view of Huth, or alternatively, in view
of Abreu, Baudoin, and Pidcock (US 7,000,397 B2, issued Feb. 21,
2006).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1 and 7 together. Appeal Br.
4. We select claim 1 as representative and claim 7 stands or falls with claim
1. 37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Glezer in view of Huth
The Examiner finds that Glezer discloses ah the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 7 with the exception of “the second portion of air
not entering the combustion zone” due to unlabeled “holes near the
downstream end of the liner underneath numeral 50.” Final Act. 4; see
Glezer Fig. 2. The Examiner further finds that Huth discloses “combustor
liners may be made without openings such that the cooling flow around the
liner may flow the length of the combustor liner without entering the
3
Appeal 2015-003176
Application 12/742,031
combustion chamber.” Id. (citing Huth, col. 12,11. 4—7.). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious “to make Glezer’s liner without
holes in order to allow cooling across the entire length of the combustor
liner, as taught by Huth.” Id.
Appellants contend that Huth discloses that its cooling air is directed
“to a burner for combustion in the burner upon exiting the inner
space.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Huth, col. 11,1. 63 — col. 12,1. 9.). Appellants
also contend that other portions of Huth “support the fact that Huth does not
teach or suggest modifying a combustor liner to prevent cooling flow from
entering the combustion chamber.” Id. (citing Huth, col. 4,11. 56—64). The
Examiner responds that the combination of Glezer and Huth “simply
modifies Glezer’s combustor liner such that it does not comprise any holes
which inject air into the combustion chamber, as was well known in the art,
as taught by Huth.” Ans. 2.
Glezer discloses a “gas turbine engine 10 .. . having a compressor 12,
a combustor 14 ... in fluid communication with the compressor 12.”
Glezer, 114, Fig. 1. Combustor 14 “has a combustion zone 18 and a first
liner 22 bounding the combustion zone 18.” Id. 115. Combustor 14 “also
has a first convector 30 spaced apart from the first liner 22. ” Id. 115, Fig. 2.
Glezer discloses cooling device 62 “formed by the first surface of liner 22.”
Id. 121. A “defined volume 38 is disposed between the first liner 22 and the
first convector 30.” Id. 116, Fig. 2. “[Fjirst end portion 40 and the second
end portion 42 of the defined volume 38 may be open or closed.” Id. 117,
Fig. 2.
The Examiner does not direct us to any disclosure in Glezer’s
specification of holes in first liner 22 illustrated under reference numeral 50
4
Appeal 2015-003176
Application 12/742,031
as referred to by the Examiner in the rejection of claims 1 and 7. Final Act.
4. We are unable to discern from an examination of Glezer’s Figure 2 or the
other drawings that any holes are present in first liner 22. When we review
the disclosure of drawings in a prior art reference, we should “evaluate and
apply the teachings ... on the basis of what they reasonably disclose and
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Aslanian, 590, F.2d 911,
914 (CCPA 1979); In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). In this
case, we determine that Figure 2 of Glezer would not reasonably disclose or
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that holes are present in first liner
22. Based on this determination, there is no adequate reason with rational
underpinnings to combine the teachings of Glezer with Huth. In the absence
of holes in first liner 22, cooling air flowing in volume 38 between open end
portions 40 and 42 will not enter Glezer’s combustion zone 18. Therefore,
we find that Glezer anticipates claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it
discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. We, thus, sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and claim 7, which falls with claim 1. However,
because our analysis differs from the Examiner’s, we designate our
affirmance as a new ground of rejection under 35 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to
provide Appellants with a fair opportunity to respond.
Claim 21 depends from claim 1. Claims App. 4. Appellants did not
argue separately for the patentability of claim 21. Appeal Br. 13. We thus
sustain the rejection of claim 21 but designate our affirmance as a new
ground of rejection under 35 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) for the reasons stated in
connection with claim 1.
5
Appeal 2015-003176
Application 12/742,031
Glezer in view of Abreu and Baudoin
The Examiner alternatively turned to Abreu and Baudoin to interpret
Glazer as including a dilution zone downstream of combustion zone 18 and
to conclude that Glezer’s unlabeled holes allow cooling air to flow into the
dilution zone rather than the combustion zone. Final Act. 4—5. In light of
our determination stated above that Glezer anticipates claims 1 and 7, we do
not decide this alternative rejection of claims 1 and 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50
(a)(1).
Rejections 2, 3, and 4
Claims 2—6 depend ultimately from claim 1. Claims App. 2—3.
Claims 8—12 depend ultimately from claim 7. Id. at 3^4. Appellants did not
argue separately for the patentability of claims 2—6 and 8—12. Appeal Br.
13. We sustain the rejections of claims 2—6 and 8—12 but designate our
affirmance as a new ground of rejection under 35 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) for the
reasons stated in connection with claims 1 and 7.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 and 21 is affirmed
with our affirmance being designated a new ground of rejection.
FINAFITY OF DECISION
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides:
6
Appeal 2015-003176
Application 12/742,031
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, [Appellants], within
two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new ground[s] of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence
relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have
the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
event the prosecution will be remanded to the
examiner. The new ground[s] of rejection [are]
binding upon the Examiner unless an amendment or
new Evidence not previously of Record is made
which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the
new ground[s] of rejection designated in this
decision. Should the examiner reject the claims,
[Appellants] may again appeal to the Board pursuant
to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same
Record. The request for rehearing must address any
new ground of rejection and state with particularity
the points believed to have been misapprehended or
overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection
and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED: 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
7