Ex Parte Cornwell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2017

10933887 (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.
10/933,887 09/03/2004 Michael Cornwell 2006P06690US01 4053
22116 7590 01/23/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
PEYTON, DESMOND C
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL CORNWELL and
VLADIMIR DUSAN MILOSAVLJEVIC
Appeal 2015-001998
Application 10/933,887
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Cornwell and Vladimir Dusan Milosavljevic (“Appellants”)
seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set
forth in the Final Office Action dated January 30, 2014 (“Final Act.”),
rejecting claims 1, 3, 6—12, and 15—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dean (US 6,070,410, issued June 6, 2000) and Pederson
(US 2004/0050056 Al, published Mar. 18, 2004).1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, of Munich,
Germany, as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-001998
Application 10/933,887
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter relates “to burners adapted to stabilize
engine combustion.” Spec. 1. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Claim
1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. A burner for a gas turbine combustor
comprising:
a) a cylindrical main body having axially
opposed upstream and downstream end portions,
the main body having at least one fuel inlet passage
and at least one air inlet passage formed therein
which are adapted to respectively supply all fuel and
air to a mixing chamber defined in the downstream
end portion of the main body, the mixing chamber
configured to swirl and mix the fuel and air supplied
to the mixing chamber, wherein the fuel and air
supplied to the mixing chamber constitute an
entirety of fuel and air supplied by the burner to a
combustion chamber;
b) a flame holder disposed within the
mixing chamber and including a base portion
engaged with the main body of the burner and an
elongated bluff body; wherein the bluff body
includes a tapered upstream section, wherein the
tapering is a reduction in diameter in the
downstream direction, and a downstream neck
section, the neck section includes a radially
enlarged tip region that has an outside diameter
which is larger than an axially upstream region of
the neck section, and the bluff body extends in an
axially downstream direction from the base portion
through the mixing chamber so as to control the
position of a combustion ignition point downstream
of the mixing chamber, wherein the fuel and air first
2
Appeal 2015-001998
Application 10/933,887
mix in the mixing chamber about the tapered
upstream section of the bluff body, and
a quarl device disposed adjacent to the
downstream end portion of the cylindrical main
body, the quarl device defining an interior
recirculation chamber and a burner exit that leads to
the combustion chamber, the interior recirculation
chamber adapted for receiving combustion gases
from the mixing chamber and for recirculating a
portion of the combustion gases in an upstream
direction so as to aid in stabilizing combustion.
DISCUSSION
The three independent claims—claims 1,11, and 20—each recite,
among other limitations, “a cylindrical main body . . . having at least one
fuel inlet passage . . . formed therein.” Br. 11, 13, 15 (Claims App.). For
these limitations, the Examiner relies on Dean, stating:
a cylindrical main body (#28, Fig. 1) having axially opposed
upstream and downstream end portions, the main body having at
least one fuel inlet passage and at least one air inlet passage
formed therein which are adapted to respectively supply all fuel
and air to a mixing chamber (a downstream portion of #36, col. 3,
lines 7—12).
Final Act. 2 (addressing claim 1); see also id. at 5—6 (relying on the same
findings for claim 11), 7—8 (relying on the same findings for claim 20).
Appellants argue that “the independent claims recite that all of the
fuel is supplied through a fuel inlet passage in the main body of the burner”
and that, “[i]n contrast, Dean . . . teaches that fuel is supplied through
orifices 38a on the outer surface 32a of center body 32.” Br. 8 (citing Dean,
col. 3,11. 1—6). Appellants contend that, in Dean, “[t]he outer surface 38a on
3
Appeal 2015-001998
Application 10/933,887
which the orifices 3 8a are provided is spaced radially from the inner surface
of the shroud 30.” Id. (citing Dean, col. 2,11. 64—66).2
The Examiner agrees with Appellants’ statements regarding Dean, but
takes the position that, regardless, “[t]he claimed fuel inlet passage does still
read on Dean.” Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted). According to the Examiner, “the
fuel inlet passage is still located in the main body as shown in Fig. 1 of Dean
... as broadly and reasonably interpreted] without reading the limitations of
the specification into the claim.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading the claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, Appellants
and the Examiner agree as to the teachings of Dean, but disagree as to the
construction of “formed therein” in the limitations at issue. We agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has applied an unreasonably broad
construction of “formed therein” because the limitations at issue require that
the “fuel inlet passage” be formed in the structure of the “cylindrical main
body” rather than merely located within the hollow central portion of the
“cylindrical main body” (as proposed by the Examiner and taught by Dean).
The Specification supports this construction, describing fuel inlet
passages 56 in Figure 2 as “formed in” main body 50 and showing the
hatching denoting main body 50 surrounding exemplary fuel inlet passages
56. Spec. 9, Fig. 2; see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(h)(3) (2013) (“Hatching must
2 We understand Appellants’ statement regarding “outer surface 38a”
to refer to centerbody outer surface 32a. See, e.g., Dean, col. 3,11. 1—6.
4
Appeal 2015-001998
Application 10/933,887
be used to indicate section portions of an object.... The various parts of a
cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner . . . .”).
Because the Examiner has not shown that Dean satisfies the
limitations at issue when applying the proper construction of “formed
therein,” we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 20,
and also do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 6—10 (which depend
from claim 1) or claims 12 and 15—19 (which depend from claim 11).
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1, 3, 6—12, and 15—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5