Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2016

12193679 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 12/193,679 116344 7590 Joel G Landau Aerojet Rocketdyne PO Box 7922 RLB70 FILING DATE 08/18/2008 04/04/2016 Canoga Park, CA 91304 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William S. Brown 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. P A0008469U ;67397-099PUS 1 5300 EXAMINER MEADE, LORNE EDWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2016 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): joel.landau@rocket.com nicole.holieway@rocket.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM S. BROWN, THOMAS M. W ALCZUK, RODNEY NOBLE, and FREDERICK DODD Appeal2013-008211 Application 12/193,679 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE William S. Brown et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 16, 18, 19, and 21-26. Claims 1-15, 17, and 20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Appeal2013-008211 Application 12/193,679 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to "a rocket engine, and more particularly to a fuel manifold for the injector of a hypergolic rocket engine." Spec. para. 1; Figs. 1, 3C. Claim 16, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 16. A rocket engine comprising: a combustion chamber having an acoustic resonance frequency; and a fuel manifold having a resonance frequency that is different than said acoustic resonance frequency, said fuel manifold including a main fuel chamber that is frustro-conical in shape, said main fuel chamber being directly coupled to the combustion chamber. REJECTIONS 1 I. Claims 16, 18, 21, 22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Paine (US 3,603,092, iss. Sept. 7, 1971), Sutton,2 and Badding (US 2007/0137616 Al, pub. June 21, 2007). II. Claims 19 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Paine, Sutton, Badding, and Lee (US 2005/0286998 Al, pub. Dec. 29, 2005). III. Claims 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as 1 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 19, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. See Ans. 2. 2 George P. Sutton and Oscar Biblarz, Combustion Instability, Rocket Propulsion Elements, 348-355 (2001). 2 Appeal2013-008211 Application 12/193,679 unpatentable over Paine, Sutton, Badding, and Stahn (US 5,983,626, iss. Nov. 16, 1999). IV. Claims 16, 21, 22, and 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dooley (US 3,050,942, iss. Aug. 28, 1962), Sutton, and Badding. V. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dooley, Sutton, Badding, and Morash (US 4,825,819, iss. May 2, 1989). VI. Claims 19 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dooley, Sutton, Badding, and Lee. ANALYSIS Obviousness over Paine, Sutton, and Radding Claims 16, 18, 21, 22, and 25 Claim 16 recites, in relevant part, "a combustion chamber having an acoustic resonance frequency; and a fuel manifold having a resonance frequency that is different than said acoustic resonance frequency [of the combustion chamber]." See Appeal Br. 7, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Paine discloses the device of claim 16 substantially as claimed except "Paine is silent on the fuel manifold ( 40) resonance frequency being different than said combustion chamber (11) acoustic resonance frequency." Final Act. 5. The Examiner turns to Sutton for disclosing: [I]t was known in the art that combustion instability occurred when the combustion chamber acoustic resonance frequency coupled with the fuel manifold, i.e., propellant feed system, resonance frequency. Sutton taught that when connected rocket systems have about the same natural frequency, i.e., resonance frequency, force coupling can occur which strongly amplify 3 Appeal2013-008211 Application 12/193,679 vibrations. Therefore, Sutton clearly teaches that it was known in the art that resonance frequency coupling between connected rocket systems, in this case the combustion chamber and the fuel manifold, could occur resulting in combustion instabilities that could have quickly damaged or destroyed the rocket engine when the connected systems had about the same resonance frequency. Sutton provided a positive teaching that the aim of rocket engine design was to prevent the occurrence of combustion instabilities resulting from resonance frequency coupling. Ans. 3--4; see also Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner further turns to Badding "to teach that a problem (excessive forced response), a cause (resonant frequency coupling), and a solution (resonant frequency avoidance) to the problem were known in the art." Id. at 8; see also id. at 10. According to the Examiner, "Badding specifically teaches, in Paragraph [0002], that 'In many applications, and especially in aircraft engines, excessive forced response in propulsion or power conversion equipment is avoided by resonant frequency avoidance.' Therefore, Badding teaches that the problem; cause; and solution were k_nown in many applications." Id. at 8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Paine "with the different resonance frequencies of Sutton and Badding because Sutton teaches that the aim of rocket engine design is to prevent the occurrence of combustion instabilities and avoiding forced coupling is best accomplished at the time of initial design of the engine." Final Act. 6 (citing Sutton pages 348 and 350); see also Ans. 7-8. Appellants contend that the combined teachings of Sutton and Badding do not teach a fuel manifold having a resonance frequency that is different than the acoustic resonance frequency of a combustion chamber. See Appeal Br. 2--4; see also Reply Br. 2--4. Specifically, Appellants contend: 4 Appeal2013-008211 Application 12/193,679 [T]he Examiner's assertions essentially allege that it would be obvious to design any components in a rocket engine to have different resonance frequencies. This is an unfair oversimplification of the nature of rocket engine design, and is not justified by Sutton or the other cited references. Further, although the Examiner points to the propellant feed system in Sutton, there is no implication that the feed system is or includes a manifold. For example, Sutton implicates a pump (p. 350, last paragraph), but not a manifold. Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 3--4. Appellants further contend: The teachings of Badding focus on coincidence of resonant frequency of hardware and a driving frequency from a driving force or combustion source (Badding [0002]), which in Badding is the firing frequency of a combustion chamber (Badding [0016]). Accordingly, Badding relates to a relationship with a firing frequency and does not teach a fuel manifold having a resonance frequency that is different than an acoustic resonance frequency of a combustion chamber, as claimed. Reply Br. 2-3; see also id. at 4; Appeal Br. 4. Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Sutton discloses: [T]he occurrence of buzzing may initiate high-frequency instability. Often it is characteristic of coupling between the combustion process and flow in a portion of the propellant feed system. Initiation is thought to be from the combustion process. Acoustic resonance of the combustion chamber with a critical portion of the propellant flow system, sometimes originating in a pump, promotes continuation of the phenomenon. Sutton, 350 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 5---6. We acknowledge that "when connected rocket systems have about the same natural frequency, i.e., resonance frequency, force coupling can occur" and that "one way to prevent force coupling would be to design the systems to have different resonance frequencies." See Final Act. 6. However, the Examiner fails to direct us to any discussion in Sutton to establish that the propellant 5 Appeal2013-008211 Application 12/193,679 feed (flow) system of Sutton constitutes "a fuel manifold" or that the system even "includes a fuel manifold." See id. at 5---6; see also Reply Br. 2. Further, we agree with Appellants that "the teachings of Badding with respect to resonant frequencies is directed to firing frequency, not to differing the resonant frequencies of a combustion chamber and fuel manifold." Reply Br. 4; see also Appeal Br. 4; Badding, paras. 1, 6, 16, and 18. As such, the Examiner fails to establish by sufficient evidence or technical reasoning that the combined teachings of Paine, Sutton, and Badding disclose "a fuel manifold having a resonance frequency that is different than [an] acoustic resonance frequency ... [of a] combustion chamber," as called for in claim 16. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 16 and it dependent claims 18, 21, 22, and 25 as unpatentable over Paine, Sutton, and Badding. Obviousness over Paine, Sutton, Radding, and either Lee or Stahn Claims 19, 23, 24, 26 The Examiner's rejections of (1) claims 19 and 23 as unpatentable over Paine, Sutton, Badding, and Lee; and (2) claims 24 and 26 as unpatentable over Paine, Sutton, Badding, and Stahn suffer from the same deficiencies discussed above in Paine, Sutton, and Badding. See Final Act. 8-12. The Examiner does not rely on Lee or Stahn to remedy these deficiencies. For similar reasons as those set forth supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of (1) claims 19 and 23 as unpatentable over Paine, Sutton, Badding, and Lee; and (2) claims 24 and 26 as unpatentable over Paine, Sutton, Badding, and Stahn. 6 Appeal2013-008211 Application 12/193,679 Obviousness over Dooley, Sutton, and Radding Claims 16, 21, 22, and 24-26 The Examiner's rejection of claims 16, 21, 22, and 24--26 as unpatentable over Dooley, Sutton, and Badding suffers from the same deficiencies discussed above with respect to the proposed combination of Paine, Sutton, and Badding. See Final Act. 12-16. The Examiner does not rely on Dooley to remedy these deficiencies. For similar reasons as those set forth supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16, 21, 22, and 24--26 as unpatentable over Dooley, Sutton, and Badding. Obviousness over Dooley, Sutton, Radding, and either Marash or Lee Claims 18, 19, 23 The Examiner's rejections of (1) claim 18 as unpatentable over Dooley, Sutton, Badding, and Morash; and (2) claims 19 and 23 as unpatentable over Dooley, Sutton, Badding, and Lee suffer from the same deficiencies discussed above in Paine, Sutton, and Badding. See Final Act. 16-18. The Examiner does not rely on Mo rash or Lee to remedy these deficiencies. For similar reasons as those set forth supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of (1) claim 18 as unpatentable over Dooley, Sutton, Badding, and Morash; and (2) claims 19 and 23 as unpatentable over Dooley, Sutton, Badding, and Lee. 7 Appeal2013-008211 Application 12/193,679 DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 16, 18, 19, and 21-26. REVERSED 8