Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

12269411 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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.
12/269,411 11/12/2008 Lewis Berkley Davis JR. 227840/839-2083 (AMK) 1240
30024 7590 06/27/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEWIS BERKLEY DAVIS, JR.,
WILLY STEVE ZIMINSKY, KEVIN WESTON MCMAHAN,
RONALD JAMES CHILA, and
SERGEY ANATOLIEVICH MESHKOV
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
Technology Center 3700
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L.STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lewis Berkley Davis, Jr. et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10, and 11.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Office Action Summary lists claims 1—8, 10, and 11 as rejected, but
there is no specific rejection of claim 6 in the remainder of the Final Action.
Final Act. 1 (mailed Dec. 26, 2014); see also Ans. 2—3.
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an integrated combustor and nozzle for a
gas turbine and method for integrating a combustor and nozzle. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An integrated can-annular combustor and stage one nozzle in
a gas turbine, comprising a liner, a transition piece, and a stage
one nozzle integrated as a single part, wherein the liner and the
transition piece define a combustion chamber, the combustion
chamber receiving premixed fuel and air from at least one fuel
nozzle group operatively associated with the liner to produce hot
combustion gas, and wherein the hot combustion gas is delivered
from the liner through the transition piece and stage one nozzle
to the turbine, one of the one or more fuel nozzle groups
including a plurality of mixing nozzles that premix fuel and air
and concentrate heat release and reduce flame length.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jarrell US 5,289,677 Mar. 1, 1994
DuBell US 5,749,219 May 12, 1998
Han US 6,840,048 B2 Jan. 11,2005
Inoue US 6,928,823 B2 Aug. 16, 2005
Parker US 7,665,309 B2 Feb. 23, 2010
REJECTIONS
Rejections Relying on Inoue
(I) Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Inoue. Final Act. 2—7.
(II) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Inoue and DuBell. Final Act. 13—14.
2
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
(III) Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Inoue and Han. Final Act. 12—13.
(IV) Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue and Jarrell. Final Act. 14—16.
Rejections Relying on Parker
(V) Claims 1,5, and 102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Parker. Final Act. 7—9.
(VI) Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parker. Final Act. 9—11.
(VII) Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parker and DuBell. Final Act. 11—12.
(VIII) Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parker and Han. Final Act. 12—13.
(IX) Claims 1,5, and 103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parker and Jarrell. Final Act. 14—16.
(X) Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parker and Jarrell. Final Act. 9—11, 16—17.
(XI) Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parker, Jarrell, and DuBell. Final Act. 11—12, 16—17.
(XII) Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parker, Jarrell, and Han. Final Act. 12—13, 16—17.
2 Although the Examiner includes claim 11 in the heading of Rejection (V),
claim 11 is not discussed in the body of the rejection, and rather, is
subsequently discussed as part of Rejection (VI). Thus, we understand the
inclusion of claim 11 in Rejection (V) to be a typographical error.
3 The Examiner’s inclusion of claim 11 in the heading of Rejection (IX)
appears to be a typographical error because claim 11 is not discussed in the
body of the rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
OPINION
Rejection (I), Inoue, Anticipation
Claim 1 recites, in part, “a liner, a transition piece, and a stage one
nozzle integrated as a single part.” Independent claims 10 and 11 include a
substantially similar limitation.
The Examiner finds that Inoue discloses a liner, a transition piece, and
a stage one nozzle integrated as a single part, because the word “integrate”
means “combine (one thing) with another so that they become a whole.”
Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that because there is a gap between the liner and the
transition piece of Inoue, these elements are separate pieces and, thus, are
not integrated into a single part. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants assert that
although the “parts in INOUE may indeed be combined to form a combustor
assembly ... these components in INOUE are not remotely integrated as a
single part.” Id. at 9.
The Examiner responds that the phrase “integrated as a single part”
means “combining one thing with another so that they become a whole.”
Ans. 3. The Examiner states that the proffered definition is the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claims and that one of ordinary skill in the
art would thus understand the combustor of Inoue as “having multiple pieces
formed into a single combustor section as meeting the scope ‘integrated as a
single part.’” Ans. 5.
In reply, Appellants reiterate that the claims require “that the
components are integrated into a single part.” Reply Br. 1.
We find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Although we agree
that an ordinary definition of the term “integrate” means “combine (one
4
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
thing) with another so that they become a whole,” the claims require more
than just assembling the parts. As Appellants note, the claims also require
that the components be a single part. Appellants’ Specification discloses
that “combustion chamber 22 includes a combustion liner 26 and a transition
piece 28 that deliver hot combustion gas to the turbine via a stage 1 nozzle
29,” and that “the stage 1 nozzle 29, the liner 26 and the transition piece 28
are integrated into a single part.” Spec., para. 14; Fig. 2. To be consistent
with the Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims
requires integration of the transition piece and stage one nozzle into one
(single) part. Figure 1 of Inoue shows a transition piece and what appears to
be a stage 1 nozzle at an outlet of the transition piece. The transition piece
and stage 1 nozzle of Inoue appear to be combined together as a single part.
However, as Appellants note, there is a gap between the transition piece of
Inoue and the liner of Inoue. See Appeal Br. 8. A gap denotes that Inoue’s
transition piece and liner are two separate and distinct parts. A group of
separate and distinct parts are not integrated as a single part as required by
the claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1,10, and 11
and of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, depending from claim 1 as anticipated by Inoue.
Rejection (II), Inoue and DuBell
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on the
disclosure of DuBell in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies of
Inoue with respect to claim 1 as set forth above in Rejection (I). Thus, for
the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable
over Inoue and DuBell.
5
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
Rejection (III), Inoue and Han
Claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on
the disclosure of Han in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies of
Inoue with respect to claim 1 as set forth above in Rejection (I). Thus, for
the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 as
unpatentable over Inoue and Han.
Rejection (IV), Inoue and Jarrell
The Examiner states that Appellants’ arguments, with respect to claim
1, regarding the “single part” appear to be based on the single part being
formed by a process such as casting or forging. Final Act. 14. The
Examiner notes that Inoue does not disclose that the liner, transition piece,
and stage one nozzle are all integrated into a single part made by a process
such as casting or forging, but how the single part is formed is not a
limitation required by the claims. Id. at 15. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds
that Jarrell teaches combustor components “fabricated from a single unitary
part” and the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to fabricate
the combustion components of Inoue as a single cast, forged or similarly
manufactured part as taught by Jarrell, in order to provide the advantages
disclosed by Jarrell with respect to cost, avoiding a wear resistance coating,
and improved stress and vibratory damping. Id. (citing Jarrell, col. 2,11. 25—
31). The Examiner notes that although Jarrell does not teach fabrication of
the specific recited combustor components, “an ordinary skill worker would
recognize that the benefits of manufacturing combustor components as a
unitary part can be readily applicable to the claimed components.” Id at 16.
6
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s conclusion “that if it is known to
integrate any two parts in a gas turbine, it follows that it would have been
obvious to integrate any parts of the gas turbine,” is based on flawed logic
and lacks proper support. Appeal Br. 17. Appellants assert that recognizing
that the integration of some components is beneficial “would not lead those
of ordinary skill in the art to modify INOUE [] to meet the features defined
according to the claimed invention.” Id. at 18.
The Examiner responds that the Jarrell teaching that unitary
fabrication of components would yield beneficial results “would be
applicable to the [] Inoue structure and yield a less expensive structure that is
easier to install and provides a different vibrational mode.” Ans. 7.
Appellants reply that because Jarrell “lacks a teaching or suggestion
of integrating the liner, transition piece and stage 1 nozzle into a single part,”
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of this
limitation. Appeal Br. 17.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established
sufficiently that the teachings of Jarrell would lead one of ordinary skill in
the art to integrate the liner, transition piece and stage 1 nozzle of Inoue into
a single part. Although we appreciate the Examiner citing to In re Larson,
340 F.2d 965, 968 ((CCPA 1965), the Examiner does not support the
modification in that the integrated parts of Jarrell do not relate to a liner,
transition piece, and stage 1 nozzle. Jarrell discloses a combined support
and sealing ring member 49 that combines a support ring and a seal into a
single part. Jarrell, col. 2,11. 8—10. Jarrell’s member 49 supports liner 16,
18 and seals stator vane 26 to prevent leakage of cooling air into the gas
path. Id. at col. 3,11. 34—64; Figs. 1 and 3. Even if stator vane 26 is
7
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
considered a first stage nozzle, (see Ans. 6—7), the liner 16, 18 of Jarrell and
stator move relative to member 49 and to each other to provide damping. Id.
at col. 3,1. 65—col. 4,1.13; Fig. 3. Hence, a teaching of integrating the liner
and stage 1 nozzle is not only absent from Jarrell but also contrary to the
express disclosure of Jarrell, and thus, would not lead one of ordinary skill in
the art to integrate the liner, transition piece and stage 1 nozzle of Inoue into
a single part, as the Examiner proposes. For these reasons, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 11 and of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, depending
from claim 1 as unpatentable over Inoue and Jarrell.
Rejection (V), Parker, Anticipation
The Examiner finds that Parker anticipates claims 1,5, and 10 based
on an annotated copy of Figure 2 of Parker with lettering added, reproduced
below. Final Act. 8.
8
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
Figure 2 of Parker as annotated by the Examiner is a side, partial cutaway
view of a combustor employing a secondary fuel delivery system with
reference letters A—E added by the Examiner to denote various portions of
the combustor.
The Examiner finds that Parker discloses “a liner E (fig. 2 above), a
transition piece 116 (fig. 2) and a stage one nozzle B (fig. 2 above)
integrated as a single part (fig. 2 above, the assembly is a single part).”
Final Act. 8.
Appellants assert that Parker is an assembly of multiple components
that are assembled together because Parker has a boundary joint between the
liner and the transition piece. Appeal Br. 11. Appellants argue that “the
claims do not define components integrated into a combustor assembly, but
rather recite that these components are integrated into a single part.” Id. at
12.
The Examiner responds that “the combustor assembly is interpreted as
the part where the claims do not limit the combustor assembly as being the
‘part.’” Ans. 6.
Appellants respond that “Parker fails to teach a unitary assemblage
that functions as a liner, transition piece, and stage 1 nozzle.” Reply Br. 2.
Appellants have the better position here. Appellants integrate the
liner, transition piece, and stage one nozzle into a single part by eliminating
seals and by combining the transition piece with the stage one nozzle in
order to reduce the number of parts. Spec, paras. 3—5. Thus, as discussed
above, to be consistent with the Specification, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims requires integration of the liner, transition piece
and stage one nozzle into one (single) part, which is accomplished in part by
9
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
eliminating seals. Because Parker does not describe the annular element
shown in Figure 2 between liner E and transition piece 116, we are unable to
discern from Parker whether there is a seal or gap between the liner and the
transition piece. That is, we cannot determine whether the annular element
between liner E and transition piece 116 in Parker’s Figure 2 is a welded
connection, a bolted/sealed connection, or other connection. In view of this,
the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
liner, transition piece, and stage one nozzle of Parker are integrated as a
single part without seals. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1,5, and 10 as anticipated by Parker.
Rejection (VI), Parker, Unpatentability
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1. The Examiner’s use of design choice
does not remedy the deficiencies of the anticipation rejection based on
Parker set forth above in Rejection (V). Thus, for the same reasons, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Parker.
Claim 11
Independent claim 11 recites, in part, “the stage one nozzle, the liner
and the transition piece to be integrated into a single part,” and also requires
that “the mixing nozzles have a length of 1/10 to 1/100 of a liner diameter.”
Appellants argue that “[njothing in PARKER suggests that the stage
one nozzle has been integrated into a single component with the liner and
transition piece, or even that the liner and transition piece are integrated with
one another.” Appeal Br. 13.
10
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
For the reasons discussed above in Rejections (V) we find Appellants’
argument on this point to be persuasive. The Examiner’s use of design
choice (see Final Act. 11) does not remedy the deficiencies of Parker set
forth in Rejection (V). Thus, for the same reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Parker.
Rejection (VII), Parker and DuBell
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on
the disclosure of DuBell in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies
of Parker with respect to claim 1 as set forth above in Rejection (V). Thus,
for the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3 as
unpatentable over Parker and DuBell.
Rejection (VIII), Parker and Han
Claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on
the disclosure of Han in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies of
Parker with respect to claim 1 as set forth above in Rejection (V). Thus, for
the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 as
unpatentable over Parker and Han.
Rejection (IX), Parker and Jarrell
The Examiner rejects claims 1,5, and 10 based on the same findings
and reasoning with respect to Jarrell as for Rejection (IV). Final Act. 14—16.
Appellants submit the same contentions of error as for Rejection (IV).
Appeal Br. 16—18. For the same reasons stated above in connection with
11
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
Rejection (IV), we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1,5, and 10 as
unpatentable over Parker and Jarrell.
Rejections (X)-(XII)
Rejections (X)-(XII) repeat Rejections (VI)—(VIII), but with the
addition of Jarrell to each of the rejections. See Final Act. 16—17. Thus, the
Examiner rejects claims 2-4, 7, 8, and 11 based on the same findings and
reasoning with respect to Jarrell as for Rejection (IV). Id. Appellants
submit the same contentions of error as for Rejection (IV). Appeal Br. 16—
18. For the same reasons stated above in connection with Rejection (IV), we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-4, 7, 8, and 11 as unpatentable over
Parker, Jarrell, DuBell, and Han in Rejections (X)-(XII).
DECISION
(I) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Inoue is reversed.
(II) The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Inoue and DuBell is reversed.
(III) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue and Han is reversed.
(IV) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue and Jarrell is reversed.
(V) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Parker is reversed.
(VI) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Parker is reversed.
12
Appeal 2016-000042
Application 12/269,411
(VII) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Parker and DuBell is reversed.
(VIII) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Parker and Han is reversed.
(IX) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Parker and Jarrell is reversed.
(X) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Parker and Jarrell is reversed.
(XI) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Parker, Jarrell, and DuBell is reversed.
(XII) The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Parker, Jarrell, and Han is reversed.
REVERSED
13