Ex Parte Williams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12378654 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/378,654 02/18/2009
120158 7590 05/27/2016
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Rolls-Royce)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brandon Philip Williams
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
57502-231264/DVNl 1290 8833
EXAMINER
GOYAL,ARUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
indocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANDON PHILIP WILLIAMS,
KEVIN EUGENE THOMPSON, and ROBERT RUSSELL FOGARTY
Appeal2013-007365 1
Application 12/378,6542
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Dec. 10, 2012) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 14, 2013), and the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Action," mailed July 12, 2012) and
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 14, 2013).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Delavan Inc. (Appeal
Br. 3).
Appeal2013-007365
Application 12/378,654
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to "fuel nozzles for gas turbine engines,
and more particularly, to an air swirler for fuel nozzles having
aerodynamically shaped helical turning vanes for efficiently turning the air
flow passing through the swirler while minimizing the risk of separation."
(Spec. 1, 11. 7-10).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal
and is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A fuel nozzle for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a) a nozzle body having a longitudinal axis;
b) an annular air passage defined within the nozzle body;
and
c) a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart axially
extending helically pitched swirl vanes disposed within the
annular air passage, each swirl vane having multiple joined
helical leads and a variable thickness along the axial extent
thereof.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following
rejection:
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Angel (US 6,141,967, iss. Nov. 7, 2000) and Suria (US
2007/0289306 Al, pub. Dec. 20, 2007). 3
3 A terminal disclaimer was filed and entered in order to traverse a
provisional rejection, which is therefore not part of this appeal (see Final
Act. 2-3).
2
Appeal2013-007365
Application 12/378,654
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the prior art relied on by the Examiner fails to
disclose "axially extending helically pitched swirl vanes," as recited by
independent claim 1, i.e., "c) a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart
axially extending helically pitched swirl vanes disposed within the annular
air passage, each swirl vane having multiple joined helical leads and a
variable thickness along the axial extent thereof." (Appeal Br., Claims
App.).
The Examiner relies on Angel (Fig. 3) for the use of swirl vanes in a
fuel nozzle, but specifically relies on Suria (i-fi-f 29-30, Fig. 6) for the
teaching of a helical pitch for the swirl vanes (see Final Act. 4).
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Suria' s vanes are not
helically pitched (see Appeal Br. 12-13). In particular, we are persuaded by
Appellants' argument that Figure 6 of Suria, relied on by the Examiner,
depicts vanes leaning in a radial direction, and that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that "helical" requires a pitch in an axial
direction (i.e., along an axis). Further, this understanding is reinforced by
the claim language itself which uses the claim phrase "axially extending" as
a modifier for the claim phrase "helically pitched." As such, we agree with
Appellants that Suria does not teach a "helically pitched" vane, as required
by independent claim 1.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1. For the same reason, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2-13,
which depend therefrom.
3
Appeal2013-007365
Application 12/378,654
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
4