Ex Parte Wichmann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13217359 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/217,359 08/25/2011 Lisa Anne Wichmann 19441-0554 5883
13077 7590 03/01/2017
F.versiherk SiitherlanH fTF,
EXAMINER
Suite 2300 GOYAL, ARUN
999 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
pair_sutherland @ firsttofile.com
patentdocket @ eversheds-sutherland. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LISA ANNE WICHMANN
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21—24, 30, and 31. App. Br. 2.
Claims 25, 28, 29, and 32 have been withdrawn. App. Br. 2. Claims 3—5,
8—10, 13—15, 18—20, 26, and 27 have been canceled. App. Br. 25—28
(Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to the field of electric
power plants, and more particularly to methods of operating stoichiometric
exhaust gas recirculation turbine systems.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 11 are
independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A power plant arrangement, comprising:
at least one main air compressor for compressing ambient
air into a compressed ambient gas flow; and
at least one gas turbine assembly comprising:
a turbine combustor, fluidly connected to the at least
one main air compressor, for mixing at least a first portion
of the compressed ambient gas flow with at least a first
portion of a recirculated low oxygen content gas flow and
a fuel stream to form a combustible mixture and for
burning the combustible mixture and forming the
recirculated low oxygen content gas flow;
a turbine connected to the turbine combustor and to
a turbine shaft, and being arranged to be driven by the
recirculated low oxygen content gas flow from the turbine
combustor;
a turbine compressor, fluidly connected to the
turbine combustor, and connected to the turbine shaft and
being arranged to be driven thereby;
a recirculation loop for recirculating of the
recirculated low oxygen content gas flow from the turbine
to the turbine compressor; and
an integrated inlet bleed heat conduit, fluidly
connecting an output of the turbine compressor to an input
of the at least one main air compressor, for delivering at
least a second portion of the recirculated low oxygen
content gas flow from the at least one gas turbine assembly
to the input of the at least one main air compressor,
wherein the at least a second portion of the recirculated
low oxygen content gas flow delivered to the at least one
2
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
main air compressor heats an inlet of the at least one main
air compressor;
a secondary flow path that delivers at least a third
portion of the recirculated low oxygen content gas flow
from the turbine compressor to the turbine as a secondary
flow, and the secondary flow is further delivered into the
recirculation loop after cooling and sealing the turbine;
wherein the recirculated low oxygen content gas flow
comprises an oxygen content of less than about 5 vol% and the
power plant is configured for substantially stoichiometric
combustion.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Leonard US 6,050,082 Apr. 18, 2000
Viteri US 6,910,335 B2 June 28, 2005
Biicker US 7,503,178 B2 Mar. 17, 2009
Anand US 2009/0284013 A1 Nov. 19, 2009
Tillery US 8,172,521 B2 May 8, 2012
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21—24, 30, and 31 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Biicker, Tillery, and Anand.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21—24, 30, and 31 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Viteri, Tillery, and Anand.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Viteri, Tillery, Anand, and Leonard.
3
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21—24, 30, and 31
as unpatentable over Bucker, Tillery, and Anand
Appellant argues all the claims together. App. Br. 7—15. We select
independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims standing or
falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner relies on Biicker for disclosing many of the limitations
of claim 1, but relies on Tillery for more specifically teaching a recirculated
gas flow heating an inlet of a main air compressor.1 Final Act. 2—4. The
Examiner paraphrases Tillery for providing a reason to combine Biicker and
Tillery (i.e., to provide “compressor clearance and avoid rubbing by the
rotor blades”). Final Act. 4 (referencing Tillery 3:44-46). However, the
Examiner also relies on Anand for teaching additional limitations not taught
by the Biicker/Tillery combination, and provides a reason for combining
Anand with this earlier combination. Final Act. 4—5.
Appellant identifies that which is lacking in Biicker and states that
“neither Tillery nor Anand” supplement these “noted deficiencies in Biicker
at least because neither reference teaches or suggests an integrated inlet
bleed conduit as claimed by Appellant.” App. Br. 7. The Examiner does not
rely on either reference (i.e., Tillery or Anand) for teaching this inlet bleed
conduit, but instead identifies Biicker’s item 13 as disclosing this structure.
Final Act. 3.
Appellant further contends, “Bucker does not teach or suggest using a
recirculated exhaust gas bleed heat to heat the intake of a main air
1 The Examiner finds that Bucker also heats the main air compressor inlet
(see Ans. 2), but relies on Tillery for being more specific on this point (Final
Act. 4).
4
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
compressor.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 4—5.
Although the Examiner and Appellant dispute this point (see App. Br. 9-10;
Ans. 2; Reply Br. 4—5), as noted above, the Examiner more specifically
relied on Tillery, and its combination with Biicker, for teaching this “heating
an inlet” limitation. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3^4. Without commenting on the
Examiner’s alternate finding that Biicker discloses that the main air inlet
compressor inlet is heated, we focus instead on the Examiner’s expressed
reliance on the combination of Biicker and Tillery for teaching this, and
Appellant is not persuasive that the Examiner erred in doing so.
When addressing Tillery, Appellant elaborates on what Tillery lacks,
concluding, “[i]n other words, Tillery does not deliver[] an equivalent of
Appellant’s input of recirculated low oxygen content gas flow and input of
ambient air into a compressor to heat the compressor.” App. Br. 12.
Regarding Appellant’s contention concerning “an equivalent of Appellant’s
input of recirculated low oxygen content gas flow and input of ambient air”
(emphasis added) so as to heat the compressor, we note that claim 1
addresses only the low oxygen content gas flow for this purpose.2
Furthermore, Biicker, not Tillery, is relied upon for teaching the mixing of
low oxygen content gas and ambient air. Final Act. 2; see also Biicker Fig.
2. Additionally, there is no dispute that Tillery teaches heating a compressor
inlet.3 Consequently, Appellant fails to explain how Tillery’s gas stream
2 Claim 1 recites “wherein the at least a second portion of the recirculated
low oxygen content gas flow delivered to the at least one main air
compressor heats an inlet of the at least one main air compressor.”
3 Tillery states, “[t]he heat from the hot exhaust gases of the turbine 40 is
thus transferred to the metal of the casing 24 about the inlet 26 of the
compressor 20.” Tillery 3:42-45.
5
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
identified by the Examiner (i.e., that which is “extracted through port 120
and routed via conduit 130,” (Final Act. 4; see Tillery Fig. 3)) fails to teach
or suggest this limitation when combined with Biicker. More specifically,
Appellant fails to explain how the Examiner’s reliance on Biicker’s stream 6
(i.e., corresponding to the recited “second portion of the recirculated low
oxygen content gas flow”) cannot be modified in view of Tillery’s teachings
so as to specifically heat the inlet of Biicker’s corresponding main air
compressor (HP) in order to avoid rubbing by the rotor blades. Final Act. 2—
4; Tillery 3:44-46.
Appellant also contends that Tillery is lacking because Tillery
“discloses the use of an isolated heat exchanger” (App. Br. 12; see also
Reply Br. 6), but the Examiner did not reference Tillery for that reason.
Appellant also considers Tillery lacking because Tillery’s hot gas “delivered
from the turbine outlet (42) [see Tillery Fig. 3] is isolated from and never
mixes with the ambient air that enters the inlet (26) of the turbine
compressor (20).” App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 6. Again, the Examiner
did not rely on Tillery for such teaching. Appellant further argues that “even
if one were to modify Tillery,” one skilled in the art “would have no reason
to modify Tillery in the manner suggested.” App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br.
7. Such arguments about “modifying Tillery” are not persuasive because, as
the Examiner states, “[t]he Examiner notes that [Biicker] is being modified
with the teachings of Tillery and not vice versa.” Ans. 3. Next, Appellant
contends that the Examiner only “vaguely suggests” that heating the inlet
“would maintain the compressor clearance and avoid rubbing by the rotor
blades” and that “the asserted rationale fails to specifically explain why” one
skilled in the art “would even seek a solution to this purported problem.”
6
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 8. Appellant is apparently wholly ignoring
Tillery’s teaching that one would seek such a solution “so as to avoid
rubbing by the rotor blades 22” because “shrinkage or thermal contraction of
the casing” can be controlled by such heating. Tillery 3:42-46.
In summation, Appellant does not explain how the Examiner failed to
provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning when combining
Biicker and Tillery. Accordingly, and based on the above, Appellant’s
contentions regarding the combination of Biicker and Tillery are not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant also contends that Biicker “teaches away from pre­
compression mixing of ambient air and recirculated air.” App. Br. 10;
see also Reply Br. 5—6. However, Appellant does not indicate where
claim 1 precludes any such pre-compression mixing. As the Examiner
states, “the Application is examined as claimed and not as disclosed.” Ans.
3.
Appellant also argues that Biicker “teaches away from the Appellant’s
claimed power plant arrangement” by focusing on the requirement that both
ambient air and a recirculated gas flow are delivered to the main air
compressor. App. Br. 10. However, as the Examiner points out, Biicker
also discloses input at the main compressor (HP) of ambient air from the LP
compressor and recirculated gas via line 13.4 See Biicker Fig. 4; see also
Ans. 2—3. In short, in view of Biicker’s illustrated teaching, Appellant’s
teaching away argument is not persuasive.
4 We note Appellant appears to be correlating both Biicker’s LP and HP
compressors to the claimed “main air compressor,” when, in fact, the
Examiner is only correlating Biicker’s HP compressor to this claimed
device. See App. Br. 11; Final Act. 2; Reply Br. 5—6.
7
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
When addressing Anand, Appellant repeats the contention that
“Anand does not teach or suggest an integrated inlet bleed heat conduit.”
App. Br. 14. However, as above, the Examiner relied on Biicker for such
teaching, not Anand. Final Act. 3^4. Appellant also contends that Anand
does not teach “heating the inlet of the main air compressor” (App. Br. 14—
15), but the Examiner relied on the combination of Biicker and Tillery for
this, not Anand. See supra. Appellant further argues, “Anand teaches away
from the use of substantially stoichiometric combustion in a gas turbine
system.” App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 8. First, the Examiner relied on
Biicker for such teaching, not Anand. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. Second,
stoichiometric combustion is understood as dealing with “the laws of
definite proportions” during combustion.5 As used in Appellant’s
Specification, this term is understood to embody a balance with little
wastage (“That is, the oxygen-containing fresh air supply may be matched to
the fuel flow such that the combustion process operates at near combustion
stoichiometry.”). Spec. 112. With this in mind, Appellant does not explain
how Anand fails to teach a desire for low effluent, or “substantially
stoichiometric combustion.” See Anand 131 (discussing how “potential
unwanted partial combustion products, such as NO and CO, can be further
reduced”). Accordingly, even if Anand were relied on by the Examiner for
this limitation, Appellant fails to explain how the limitation of a
“substantially stoichiometric combustion” is not also disclosed in Anand.
In summation, and based on the record presented, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17,
5 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stoichiometry. See also
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defmition/stoichiometry.
8
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
21—24, 30, and 31 as being obvious over Biicker, Tillery, and Anand. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21—24, 30, and 31
as unpatentable over Viteri, Tillery, and Anand
As above, Appellant argues all the claims together. App. Br. 16—21.
We select independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims
standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner relies on the teachings of Viteri in a manner
corresponding to that discussed above with respect to Biicker. Final Act. 5—
7. The Examiner also relies on Tillery and Anand for the same reasons and
expresses similar motivation for their combination. Final Act. 7—8.
Appellant repeats many of the arguments presented above, but substituting
Viteri for Biicker. App. Br. 16—21; Reply Br. 9-12. We do not repeat such
discussions here.
Appellant contends that “Viteri advocates adding oxygen instead of
ambient air into the combustor” and that as a result of such advocacy,
“Viteri teaches away from using ambient air for combustion.” App. Br.
18; see also App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 11. Although Viteri may advocate
using oxygen in place of air during combustion, Viteri also teaches that it is
known to use air during combustion. See Viteri Abstract; 15:39-48; 22:51—
53. On this point, our reviewing court has explained that just because better
alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination
is inapt for obviousness purposes. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994). This court has also more recently stated, “[t]he prior art’s mere
disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away
from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize,
9
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”. In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). In the present matter,
Appellant does not identify where Viteri criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the use of ambient air for combustion such that Viteri can be
said to “teach away,” thereby warranting a reversal of the Examiner’s
rejection.
When addressing item 700 in Figure 10 of Viteri, Appellant states,
“Viteri teaches that mixing of the recirculated flow and ambient air occurs at
location (700)” prior to entering downstream main air compressor 750 and
subsequently combustor 760. App. Br. 17; Viteri Fig. 10. However,
Appellant thereafter provides a statement to the opposite effect that ambient
air is not compressed or delivered to a combustor. App. Br. 18 (“Viteri
therefore does not teach the use of at least one main air compressor for
compressing ambient air into a compressed ambient gas flow and delivering
the compressed ambient gas flow to a turbine combustor.”). Appellant relies
on this latter statement in support of Viteri teaching away from using
ambient air for combustion. App. Br. 18. However, as indicated above, we
are not persuaded by Appellant’s “teaching away” arguments.
Also, Appellant’s arguments regarding Tillery and Anand, which
pertain to limitations that Tillery and Anand were not relied on for, are also
not persuasive of Examiner error. See App. Br. 20.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21—24, 30, and 31
as unpatentable over Viteri, Tillery, and Anand.
10
Appeal 2015-002649
Application 13/217,359
The rejection of claims 6 and 16
as unpatentable over Viteri, Tillery, Anand, and Leonard
Appellant argues dependent claims 6 and 16 together. App. Br. 21—
22. We select claim 6 for review.
Appellant contends that there are deficiencies in the combination of
Viteri, Tillery, and Anand and that “[t]he disclosure of Leonard fails to
remedy this deficiency.” App. Br. 21. We do not agree with Appellant that
there are deficiencies in the combination of these three references. See
supra. Further, Appellant does not dispute the additional teachings of
Leonard, or the Examiner’s reasons for relying on Leonard. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 16 as
being obvious over Viteri, Tillery, Anand, and Leonard.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21—24,
30, and 31 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11