Ex Parte Harvell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2017

13249852 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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.
13/249,852 09/30/2011 Daniel Thomas Harvell 252928; 3053557 7613
13090 7590
Barclay Damon, LLP
Barclay Damon Tower
125 East Jefferson Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
EXAMINER
MARKOFF, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2017 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):
IPDocket@barclaydamon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL THOMAS HARVELL,
GREGORY DOUGLAS TROUTMAN, and
MICHAEL GERARD LYNCH
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—5, 7, 8, 21, and 24 under
1 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Specification filed Sept. 30, 2011
(Spec.), Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed May 4, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed Oct. 23, 2015 (Ans.), and Appellants’ Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) filed Dec. 23, 2015.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as General Electric Company.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Esmacher3 in view of Nakada,4
rejecting claims 9-16, 18—20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Esmacher in view of Nakada and further in view of
Kilbum5 and Maeda,6 and rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Esmacher in view of Nakada and further in view of
Walton7 and Babcock.8 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims on appeal are directed to methods of cleaning a quaternary
fuel gas distribution annulus chamber in the forward combustion cans of a
gas turbine (see, e.g., claims 1, 9, and 20).
Debris accumulates in the annulus chamber and thus cleaning is
recommended. Spec. 12. However, the annulus chamber is narrow and
difficult to access. Spec. 12. Existing cleaning processes remove
combustion cans from a turbine and ship the can to an offsite location, which
can be time consuming and costly. Spec. 13. To address this, Appellants
disclose methods of cleaning while the fuel gas annulus chamber remains
mounted to the turbine and without using chemical agents. Spec. 1 5.
Specifically, Appellants disclose feeding a cable through the annulus
chamber to a position at least 180 degrees from a fuel inlet orifice and
rotating the cable. Spec. 1 6. The annulus chamber may further be aerated
to remove dislodged debris. Spec. 1 6.
3 Esmacher et al., US 2011/0083701 Al, published Apr. 14, 2011
(“Esmacher”).
4 Nakada et al., US 5,301,061 A, issued Apr. 5, 1994 (“Nakada”).
5 Kilbum, US 2004/0074883 Al, published Apr. 22, 2004 (“Kilbum”).
6 Maeda et al., US 6,932,761 B2, issued Aug. 23, 2005 (“Maeda”).
7 Walton, US 5,020,188, issued June 4, 1991 (“Walton”).
8 Babcock, US 3,489,607, issued Jan. 13, 1970 (“Babcock”).
2
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief with
portions at the center of the dispute emphasized:
1. A method of cleaning a quaternary fuel gas distribution
annulus chamber in forward combustion cans of a gas turbine,
wherein each forward combustion can has a quaternary fuel
inlet orifice leading to the quaternary fuel gas distribution
annulus chamber, the method comprising the steps of:
feeding a first end of a cable through the quaternary fuel
gas distribution annulus chamber in a first circumferential
direction to a position at least 180 degrees from the quaternary
fuel inlet orifice;
rotating the cable about its longitudinal axis to contact
an inner wall surface of the quaternary fuel gas distribution
annulus chamber with the first end of the cable to dislodge
debris from the inner wall surface of the quaternary fuel gas
distribution annulus chamber, and
passing air through the quaternary fuel gas distribution
annulus chamber.
Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 1 (emphasis added).
OPINION
Rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, 21, and 24 over Esmacher and Nakada
In responding to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, 21, and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Esmacher and
Nakada, Appellants focus most of their arguments on claim 1, but also refer
to various other claims. Appeal Br. 12—21. To the extent the further
arguments present other issues, we address them separately.
3
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Esmacher discloses a method of cleaning
quaternary fuel gas distribution annulus chambers for gas turbines via
chemical cleaning followed by passing air through the annulus chambers.
Ans. 2. Esmacher discloses a process of removing iron oxide corrosion
products from inside fuel pathways, such as a quaternary fuel circuit of a gas
turbine, via chemical cleaning. Esmacher || 2, 4, 7. Esmacher further
discloses using high pressure air to blow out the quaternary annulus chamber
to remove loose debris, flushing the annulus chamber with water and high
pressure air to remove residue after cleaning, and using a horoscope to
inspect the cleaned chamber. Esmacher || 22, 31.
The Examiner finds Esmacher does not disclose the use of cables for
cleaning, but finds that “the use of rotating cables was notoriously well
known in the art to improve cleaning of [the] internal surface[s] of [a]
variety of different work pieces,” and cites as an example a plumber's snake
to clean internal surfaces of pipes. Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds that
Nakada teaches using a horoscope including a rotating cable with brushes or
hones to clean turbine components. Ans. 3. Based on what was notoriously
well-known and the teachings of Nakada, the Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to modify the method of Esmacher to include the
cleaning arrangements of Nakada to enhance Esmacher’s cleaning process.
Ans. 3^4.
Appellants contend the claims are directed to using a cable, not a
brush, and the combination of Esmacher and Nakada does not disclose a
rotating cable that contacts an inner wall surface of a quaternary fuel gas
distribution annulus chamber with a first end of the cable to dislodge debris
4
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
from the inner wall surface, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13—16 and
Reply Br. 3. Appellants further contend the Examiner is relying on the mere
possibility of the cable contacting an inner surface and the Examiner should
cite to a portion of Nakada’s disclosure that supports the Examiner’s finding.
Appeal Br. 20-21.
The dispositive issue on appeal for claim 1 is whether Appellants have
identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that the prior art
provides a reason or suggestion for rotating a cable about its longitudinal
axis to contact the inner wall surface of Esmacher’s quaternary fuel gas
distribution annulus chamber.
Appellants have not identified such an error.
Nakada discloses an industrial endoscope system for inspecting the
interior of an automobile engine, a boiler, turbine, engine, or chemical plant.
Nakada col. 1,11. 6—8, 14—17. The system includes a plurality of sheaths
having different fitting functions for use with a single endoscope. Nakada
col. 1,11. 46—50. A fiber scope 2 (i.e., endoscope) includes an operating part
13, a flexible insertable part 12, an eyepiece 14, a light guide hose 16, and a
lens system 18. Nakada col. 4,11. 16—21, 27—30. One of the sheaths 7 has a
multilumen tube 78 having a channel 33 for the insertable part 12 of the
fiber scope 2 and a channel 34 for a treating instrument, such as a brush 37
for cleaning. Nakada col. 6,11. 20-43. The brush 37 includes an elongated
shaft, as depicted in Figure 1 of Nakada. Nakada discloses cleaning by
inserting the brush 37 into the sheath 7 so the brush 37 “is projected out of
the tip of the sheath 7, is pressed against the part to be cleaned and is
advanced and retreated or rotated at the rear end.” Nakada col. 9,11. 1—5.
Nakada also teaches a hone 47 connected to a flexible shaft 49 and a process
5
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
of grinding using the hone 47. Nakada col. 4,11. 11—15; col. 6,11. 34-43;
col. 9,11. 10-17.
The disclosure of Nakada supports the Examiner’s findings that
Nakada discloses a rotating cable that includes a brush for cleaning a
surface, such as a surface of a turbine. As noted by the Examiner,9 claim 1
does not exclude providing a brush on the claimed cable. Nakada further
provides evidence that other cleaning apparatus, such as hones, were known
in the art.
Moreover, the Examiner’s finding that the brush 37 of Nakada,
including its cable portion, would contact an inner surface during a cleaning
operation10 is reasonable in view of Nakada’s disclosure that the brush 37 is
projected out of the tip of sheath 7 and pressed against a surface to be
cleaned.* 11 Although Appellants argue at pages 19-20 of the Appeal Brief
that the bristles of the brush 37 would prevent the cable portion from
contacting an inner wall and that “debris inside of an annulus chamber of a
gas turbine could not be removed with simple brushes” (emphasis omitted),
the evidence supports a contrary finding based on the fact that as the shaft of
the brush extends from the sheath 7 and passes through a circumferential
annular chamber, such as the annulus chamber of a forward combustion can,
the shaft would bend and come into contact with the inner wall of the
chamber. The Examiner’s finding is reasonable given the disclosure of
Nakada.
9 Ans. 10.
10 Ans. 9-10.
11 Nakada col. 9,11. 1—5.
6
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
Appellants further argue the sheath of Nakada is “specifically
designed to prevent insertable parts, such as the brush, from contacting
outside structures” and therefore Nakada teaches away from the claimed
invention. Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). This argument is unpersuasive
because, as discussed above, Nakada specifically discloses the brush 37
projects from the tip of the sheath 7 and “is pressed against the part to be
cleaned.” Nakada col. 9,11. 1—5.
We further note that Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding
that “the use of rotating cables was notoriously well known in the art to
improve cleaning of internal surface of variety of different work pieces.”
Ans. 3. The Examiner supports that finding with the example of a plumber’s
snake, a well-known tool for cleaning pipes. Id.
In addition, Appellants assert elements of claims 1,3,9, and 20 have
not been addressed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 16—17. Specifically,
Appellants argue limitations directed to feeding a first end of a cable through
a quaternary fuel gas distribution annulus chamber in a first circumferential
direction to a position at least 180 degrees (or at least 270 degrees) from the
quaternary fuel inlet orifice, as recited in claims 1, 9, and 20, and feeding the
cable through the annulus chamber in a second circumferential direction
opposite to the first circumferential direction to a position at least 180
degrees from the inlet orifice have not been addressed. Appeal Br. 16—17
and Reply Br. 4. These arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner
provided specific findings and conclusions directed to these limitations, and
Appellants’ arguments do not address those findings and conclusions. Ans.
3^4. For instance, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s determination
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the horoscope of
7
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
Esmacher to inspect the entire chamber, which has been cleaned, and which
would involve moving the horoscope through the entire chamber in both
directions. Ans. 3. Nor do Appellants specifically address the Examiner’s
determination that it would have been obvious to move the cable of
Esmacher, as modified by Nakada, inside of an annulus chamber in any
direction via rotation and moving the cable back and forth to enhance
cleaning and ensure the brush contacts the entire surface to be cleaned. Ans.
4.
In view of the above and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, we determine a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s obviousness determination for the rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8,
and 24.
Claims 21 and 22
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the cable
further comprises an outer sheath to prevent damage to the inner wall
surface of the quaternary fuel gas distribution annulus chamber.” Appeal Br.
Claims Appendix 5.
Claim 22 depends from claim 9 and is not included in this rejection.
However, we will discuss claim 22 here for purposes of efficiency and
because the recitations of claim 22 are similar to those of claim 21.
Appellants contend “those structures of Nakada which do rotate lack
an outer sheath to prevent damage to the inner wall surface as required by
claims 21 and 22.” Appeal Br. 16. These arguments are not persuasive
because the Examiner finds Nakada discloses a sheath. Ans. 3. Appellants’
arguments simply assert a protective sheath is lacking in the disclosure of
Nakada. Nor do Appellants explain why the sheath 7 of Nakada would not
8
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
function to prevent damage to an inner surface of an annulus chamber, as
recited in claims 21 and 22, or otherwise provide evidence the sheath 7
would not function as a protective sheath.
In view of the above, Appellants’ arguments do not identity a
reversible error in the § 103 rejection of claim 21 or in the § 103 rejection of
claim 22, which will be discussed below.
Rejection of claims 9—16, 18—20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 over Esmacher,
Nakada, Kilburn, and Maeda
Claims 9—16, 18—20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Esmacher in view of Nakada and further in view
of Kilburn and Maeda.
The Examiner finds Esmacher, as modified by Nakada, does not
disclose vacuuming a chamber. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds Kilburn
discloses using a vacuum to remove debris and waste when cleaning gas
turbine components and Maeda discloses cleaning turbine engines with
horoscopes. Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
use a vacuum source in the process of Esmacher to improve cleaning and
ensure a more complete removal of debris and waste. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue Kilburn is directed to cleaning the external surfaces
of turbine blades with lasers so “[i]t is unclear how the surface-lasers of
Kilburn could be adapted to clean the internal surface of a quaternary fuel
gas distribution annulus chamber.” Appeal Br. 23. This argument is
unpersuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s rejection. As noted
above, the Examiner relies on Kilburn’s disclosure of a vacuum system, not
Kilburn’s laser cleaning system. Although Esmacher suggests using an air
9
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
blowing system to rid the chamber of debris,12 Kilbum provides evidence
that using a vacuum system to perform this cleaning function would have
been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 9-16, 18—20, 22, 23, 25,
and 26.
Rejection of claim 6 over Esmacher, Nakada, Walton, and Babcock
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Esmacher in view of Nakada and further in view of Walton and Babcock.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and
further recites an adapter that includes an air inlet, which directs air through
the annulus chamber, and an air outlet. Claim 6 recites “wherein the air
outlet is connected to a vacuum cleaner, the method further comprising
actuating the vacuum cleaner such that air that is passed through the
quaternary fuel gas distribution annulus chamber from the air inlet of the
adapter is pulled out through the air outlet of the adapter.” Appeal Br.
Claims Appendix 2.
In the § 103 rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Esmacher
discloses an adapter that is attached to a quaternary fuel gas distribution
annulus chamber for cleaning. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds Esmacher, as
modified by Nakada, does not disclose passing air through the inlet of the
adapter and pulling air through the outlet of the adapter via a vacuum cleaner
connected to the outlet. Ans. 6. However, the Examiner concludes it would
12 Esmacher || 22, 31.
10
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
have been obvious to pass air through the adapter of Esmacher to reduce
processing time. Ans. 6.
With regard to the vacuum recitation recited in claim 6, the Examiner
finds Walton and Babcock disclose using vacuum cleaners connected to the
outlets of conduits. Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds Kilbum13 discloses
the use of a vacuum to remove debris and waste when cleaning gas turbine
components. Ans. 7. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to use a vacuum cleaner connected to the outlet of the adapter of Esmacher
to collect liquid and debris to prevent environmental contamination and
reduce health risks to operators. Ans. 7.
Appellants assert the cited prior art references do not disclose
inserting and removing air through an adapter, as recited in claim 6. Appeal
Br. 27—28. Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. Appellants’ arguments
do not address the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to
pass air through the inlet and outlet of Esmacher’s adapter. Nor do
Appellants’ arguments address what the combination of the applied
references, as a whole, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. The applied references, such as Kilbum and Walton, demonstrate it was
known in the art to use a vacuum source to remove debris in a cleaning
process. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to substitute a vacuum source, which removes debris from an annulus
chamber during a cleaning operation, for an air source that passes air
13 Although Kilbum was not cited in the statement of the rejection at page 6
of the Examiner’s Answer, Kilbum is cited in the body of the rejection at
page 7 of the Examiner’s Answer. Kilbum was similarly cited in the body
of the rejection at page 7 of the Final Office Action mailed Sept. 25, 2014.
11
Appeal 2016-002665
Application 13/249,852
through the adapter of Esmacher. Thus, a preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 6.
DECISION
On the record before us, we affirm the decision of the Examiner to
reject the claims.
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
12