Ex Parte Williams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12500649 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/500,649 07/10/2009
120158 7590 03/02/2016
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Rolls-Royce)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brandon Phillip 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.
57502-231268/DVNl 1292 2764
EXAMINER
GOYAL,ARUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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 PHILLIP WILLIAMS and
KEVIN EUGENE THOMPSON
Appeal2013-010346
Application 12/500,649
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brandon Phillip Williams and Kevin Eugene Thompson (Appellants)
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1-3 and 11-13 as unpatentable over Saitoh
(US 6,880,340 B2; iss. Apr. 19, 2005) and Steinhorsson (US 6,560,964 B2;
iss. May 13, 2003). Claims 4--10 and 14--19 have been withdrawn from
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2013-010346
Application 12/500,649
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "fuel nozzles for gas turbine
engines, and more particularly, to air swirlers for fuel nozzles having
aerodynamically shaped swept swirl vanes." Spec. 1, 11. 4--5; Figs. 1, 2,
and 5-9. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
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 aerodynamic swirl vanes disposed within the annular
air passage, each swirl vane having an axially swept cross-
sectional profile along the radial extent thereof.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3. 11. and 13
Appellants do not present any substantive arguments regarding claims
1-3, 11, and 13. See Br. 8 (emphasis added) ("The issue to be reviewed on
appeal is whether under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the subject matter of claim 12
is patentable over [Saitoh and Steinhorsson]. "). Appellants explain that:
In [Appellants'] after final Amendment and Response filed
January 25, 2013, [Appellants] merely sought to rewrite claim 12
in independent form by canceling claim 12 and incorporating the
additional features thereof into claim 1. However, the
Examiner's Advisory Action mailed February 7, 2013 continued
the final rejection of claims 1-3 and 11-13 and did not enter
[Appellants'] January 25, 2013 amendments.
Br. 5. Appellants argue that "these amendments should have been entered as
they reduce the issues for appeal." Id. at 6.
2
Appeal2013-010346
Application 12/500,649
At the outset, we note that entry or non-entry of amendments is not an
appealable matter, but rather is a petitionable matter, and thus is not within
the jurisdiction of the Board. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir.
2002); and In re Mindick, 371F.2d892, 894 (CCPA 1967) (refusal of
examiner to enter an amendment of claims is reviewable by petition under
37 C.F.R. § 1.181, and not by appeal to the Board). Further, although
Appellants only argue the rejection of claim 12, claims 1-3, 11, and 13 are
nevertheless before us on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (2015) ("An
appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims
under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and
entered by the Office."). Thus, Appellants have waived any argument of
error for claims 1-3, 11, and 13, and we summarily sustain the rejection of
these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551
F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a
ground of rejection to the Board, [] the Board may treat any argument with
respect to that ground of rejection as waived.").
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from independent claim 1 and recites "wherein the
cross-sectional profile of each swirl vane has proportions that vary along the
radial extent of the swirl vane." The Examiner finds
Steinhorsson' s vane structure being incorporated in its entirety
in Saitoh's apparatus, Saitoh [in view of] Steinhorsson further
teaches that the cross-sectional profile of each swirl vane has
proportions (chord and length) that vary along the radial extent
of the swirl vane (vane being axially swept as taught by Saitoh
would obviously have radially variable length).
3
Appeal2013-010346
Application 12/500,649
Final Act. 4. In the Answer, the Examiner further explains that Saitoh alone
does not teach a swirl vane having proportions that vary along the radial
extent but rather that "[ o ]nee Saitoh' s swirler vanes have been modified to
have aerodynamic profile in view of Steinhorsson, the resulting swirler vane
would then have [a] cross-sectional profile having proportions that vary
along the radial extent." Ans. 2. In particular, the Examiner finds
Saitoh teaches axially swept swirler vanes 29 and 30, implying
the length of the vanes to vary in the radial direction as discussed
above. As shown in Saitoh's [Figure] 6, the length of the swirler
vane is longer (ll) at the outer wall and smaller at the center (!2).
Therefore, the resulting swirler vane of Saitoh modified in view
of Steinhorsson would have length ll and thickness t at the outer
wall and length 12 and thickness t at the center. The cross-
sectional profile of each swirl vanes would then vary along the
radial extent, i.e. lilt is greater than 12/t. Therefore, Saitoh
modified in view of Steinhorsson teaches the claimed limitation,
the cross-sectional profile of each swirl vane has proportions that
vary along the radial extent of the swirl vane.
Ans. 2-3 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants contend that
the combination of Saitoh and Steinhorsson does not suggest the
cross sectional profile of each swirl vane having proportions that
vary along the radial extent of the swirl vane without the benefit
of hindsight reasoning and use of [Appellant's] disclosure
because Steinhorsson discloses a constant cross sectional profile
along the radial extent thereof and Saitoh discloses no cross
sections at all.
Br. 11 (emphasis omitted).
For clarification of the claim limitation at issue, parent claim 1 is
directed to a swirl vane having "an axially swept cross-sectional profile
along the radial extent thereof." Dependent claim 12, at issue here, recites a
4
Appeal2013-010346
Application 12/500,649
swirl vane whose cross-sectional profile "has proportions that vary" along its
radial extent. In other words, a change in cross-sectional profile is more
than a mere enlargement of a profile (i.e., magnifying a profile does not
change the "proportions" of the profile). Instead, claim 12 is directed to new
and different cross-sectional profiles having different "proportions" along
the extent of the vane.
This understanding of a profile having different proportions along the
extent of the vane is consistent with Appellants' Specification which states:
With continued reference to Figs. 8-9, cross-sectional
profile 208 of each swirl vane 206 can have proportions that vary
along the radial extent of swirl vane 206. For example, in swirler
200, swirl vanes 206 each have a first airfoil shape at base
portions 216 that transitions along the radial direction into a
second airfoil shape at their tip portions 214, similar to the
principles of swept wing theory. In Fig. 9, the large arrow
schematically indicates a portion of the flow field at the tip
region and the thin arrow schematically indicates a portion of the
flow field at the base region. The flow field at the base region
has a greater degree of swirl than at the tip region due to the
greater camber at the base region compared to the tip region.
It is envisioned and well within the scope of the subject
disclosure that the airfoil geometry of the turning vanes of air
swirlers with swept vanes can be defined using the National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 4-digit
definitions, 5-digit definitions, or the modified 4-/5-digit
definitions. In each case, the airfoil shape is generated using
analytical equations that describe the camber (curvature) of the
mean line (geometric centerline) of the airfoil section, as well as
the thickness or width distribution along the length of the airfoil.
For example, it is possible to construct a swirler in accordance
with the present invention in which each swirl vane has a cross-
sectional profile defined at the tip by a NACA 2312 aiifoil and at
the hub or base by a NA CA 2 412 airfoil, with a smooth transition
between the two NACA airfoils along the radial extent of each
5
Appeal2013-010346
Application 12/500,649
swirl vane. Those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that
any suitable cross-sectional profiles can be used, whether
standard or non-standard, without departing from the spirit and
scope of the invention.
Spec. 11, 1. 9-12, 1. 5 (emphasis added); see also id. at Figs. 8 and 9. Thus,
in accordance with Appellants' Specification, a profile of a vane with
"proportions that vary along the radial extent of the swirl vane" is
understood to mean that the airfoil geometry or shape (e.g., curvature)
changes from the base to the tip of the swirl vane. See In re !VI orris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (In construing a claim term, we apply "the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification.").
Saitoh teaches swirler 39 having vanes that vary in axial length along
the radial extent of the vane (i.e., they become larger). Saitoh, Figs. 1 and
6. Steinhorsson teaches aerodynamic swirl vanes (see Steinhorsson, col. 1,
16-20), and as Appellants point out, Steinhorsson's vanes have constant
cross-sectional profiles (see Appeal Br. 9, 11; see also Steinhorsson, Fig. 8
and col. 8, 11. 23-37). In light of the teachings of Saitoh and Steinhorsson,
the Examiner correctly determines that their combined teachings would
result in a difference in profile length between the vane's tip and base. See
Ans. 2. However, given that Steinhorsson teaches a constant profile along
the vane's length (and Saitoh is silent in this regard), their combination
teaches a profile that becomes larger or is magnified along the extent of the
6
Appeal2013-010346
Application 12/500,649
vane. The Examiner has made no finding that Steinhorsson's vanes include
changes in the shape (e.g., curvature or geometry) of the cross-sectional
profile along the radial extent as discussed supra. As such, the Examiner
fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined
teachings of Saitoh and Steinhorsson disclose "the cross-sectional profile of
each swirl vane [having] proportions that vary along the radial extent of the
swirl vane," as recited in claim 12. 1
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 12 as unpatentable over Saitoh and
Steinhorsson.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 11
and 13.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 12.
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-IN-PART
1 We note Appellants' discussion in the Specification of an example of vanes
having different airfoil shapes between their base and tip portions "similar to
the principles of swept wing theory." Spec. 11, 11. 9-13.
7