Ex Parte IWAI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2018

14331361 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/331,361 07/15/2014
26158 7590 05/14/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y asunori IW AI
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.
P62622 1490US.l (0319.9) 1078
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2018 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):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y ASUNORI IW AI, MASAO ITOH,
SHINJU SUZUKI, YUICHI MO RISA WA,
JEREMY ERON FETVEDT, and
RODNEY JOHN ALLAM 1
Appeal2018-004527
Application 14/3 31,3 61 2
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and ANTHONY KNIGHT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
rejecting claims 1---6, 8-10, and 12-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 8 Rivers Capital, LLC is identified as the real party in interest and also is
the applicant as provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appellants' Petition to Make Special under 37 C.F.R. § l.102(c)(l) was
granted on October 18, 2016.
Appeal2018-004527
Application 14/331,361
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A gas turbine facility, comprising:
a combustor combusting fuel and oxidant;
a turbine rotated by combustion gas exhausted from the
combustor;
a heat exchanger for cooling combustion gas exhausted
from the turbine;
a combustion gas supply pipe guiding a part of the
combustion gas exhausted from the turbine to an oxidant supply
pipe supplying the oxidant;
a mixed gas supply pipe guiding mixed gas constituted of
the oxidant and the part of the combustion gas to the
combustor;
a working fluid supply pipe guiding another part of the
combustion gas to the combustor as working fluid of the
turbine, wherein the working fluid supply pipe directs the
working fluid through the heat exchanger to the combustor; and
an exhaust pipe exhausting a remaining part of the
combustion gas to an outside.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App'x).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Palmer (US 2012/0067056 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2012) and Golomb (US
5,724,805, iss. Mar. 10, 1998).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Palmer, Golomb, and Mittricker (US 2011/0300493 Al, pub. Dec. 8, 2011).
Claims 3-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Palmer, Golomb, and Mittricker.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Palmer, Golomb, and van der Burgt (US 6,263,661 Bl, iss. July 24, 2001).
2
Appeal2018-004527
Application 14/331,361
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Palmer, Golomb, van der Burgt, and Mittricker.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Palmer and Mittricker.
Claims 14--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Palmer, Mittricker, Golomb, and van der Burgt.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 6
Rejected Over Palmer and Golomb
Appellants argue claims 1 and 6 as a group. Appeal Br. 3---6. We
select claim 1 as representative, and claim 6 stands or falls with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Palmer teaches a gas turbine facility as
recited in claim 1, except for a supply pipe that guides combustion gas that is
exhausted from the turbine to an oxidant supply pipe or a mixed gas supply
pipe that guides a mixed gas that comprises the oxidant gas and part of the
combustion gas of the combustor. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds that
Golomb teaches a combustion gas supply line (stream 18b) guiding part of
the combustion gas exhausted from turbine 20' to an oxidant supply line
(stream 16) supplying an oxidant and a mixed gas supply pipe (stream 19)
guiding a mixed gas of the oxidant in stream 16 and part of the combustion
gas in stream 18b to combustor 20. Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that
it would have been obvious to modify Palmer to supply recycled combustion
gas exhausted from the turbine with the oxidant supply stream in a mixer to
a supply line that produces a mixed stream to the combustor and ensures a
good mixing result of the recycled exhaust gas and oxidant. Id. at 4; Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2018-004527
Application 14/331,361
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated
to supply recycled exhaust gas and oxidant on Palmer as taught by Golomb
absent improper hindsight and knowledge of the present application. See
Appeal Br. 4--5. In support of this argument, Appellants cite the Declaration
Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Jeremy Fetvedt, one of the named inventors. Id.
at 6. Mr. Fetvedt declares that the conditions of Palmer's recuperative heat
exchanger process differ vastly from Golomb's process in terms of usage of
heat from a turbine exhaust stream and operating pressures so that a skilled
artisan would not view Golomb's teachings as applicable to the Palmer
process. Fetvedt Deel. i-fi-14--5; Appeal Br. 6 (citing id.).
The Examiner's determination that a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to modify Palmer's gas turbine facility to provide a combustion
gas supply pipe that guides part of the combustion gas exhausted from the
turbine to an oxidant supply pipe and a mixed gas supply pipe guiding the
mixed oxidant and combustion gas to the combuster is supported by rational
underpinnings based on the express teachings of Golomb of the benefits of
this arrangement. Golomb, 7:52---63; Final Act. 4 (citing id.); Ans. 3.
Palmer already includes a supply pipe that feeds recycled stream 57 of
exhaust gas 28 from turbine 5 that is driven by combustion stream 27 of first
combustor 3 back to first combustor 3. Palmer i1 46, Fig. 1. Palmer feeds
compressed air stream 51 to first combustor 3 in addition to recycled stream
57 of exhaust gas 28. Id. This arrangement is similar to Golomb's feeding
of exhaust gas 18b and oxidant 16 to combustor 20. Golomb, 7:56---63.
The Examiner includes Golomb' s mixed gas supply pipe 19, which
guides a mixed gas combining oxidant (line 16) and exhaust gas (line 18b) to
ensure good mixing results as Golomb teaches is advantageous to do.
4
Appeal2018-004527
Application 14/331,361
The Examiner is not proposing to change the conditions of Palmer's
gas turbine facility process in any other way or to employ any of Golomb' s
other processes. The Examiner merely proposes to modify Palmer to add a
mixed gas supply pipe that combines oxidant from oxidant supply line 51
with recycled combustion gas 57 before introducing the mixture to first
combustor 3 to provide good mixing results, as Golomb teaches.
As a result, Mr. Fetvedt's Declaration, and Appellants' arguments that
are based thereon, are not persuasive because the Examiner is not proposing
to combine different processes of the two references or to include Golomb's
process parameters or other features in Palmer, as Mr. Fetvedt's Declaration
appears to allege. Fetvedt Deel. i-fi-1 4--5. To the contrary, the Examiner
proposes for Palmer's gas turbine process to operate as disclosed in Palmer
with the sole modification that first recycled exhaust stream 57 and
compressed air stream 51 will be combined in a mixed gas supply pipe line,
as taught by Golomb, and as claimed, in order to improve mixing of those
gases before they are introduced into first combustor 3. KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("If a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.").
Appellants' arguments and Mr. F etvedt' s Declaration do not address
the Examiner's rejection as set forth in the Final Office Action and thus are
not persuasive of error in the Examiner's findings or the determination of
obviousness. They amount to individual attacks on the references that do
not address what the Examiner proposes based on the combined teachings of
the references. See Ans. 3 (the rejection is not Golomb in view of Palmer).
5
Appeal2018-004527
Application 14/331,361
Although Palmer and Golomb may employ different power generation
processes, as Mr. Fetvedt declares, both processes generate power using gas
turbines and combustors. Both references increase the efficiency of their
processes by recycling gas exhausted from a power generation turbine into a
combustor with an oxidant gas. Palmer i-fi-146; Golomb, 1 :5-10 (an electrical
power generating plant with complete carbon dioxide (C02) recovery emits
essentially no pollutants and achieves a high thermal efficiency), 4:36-46
("the sole major combustion product is C02; the efficient capture thereof is
the major purpose of the new plant design"); 7:52-56 (mixing an oxygen
stream 16 with part of the recycled C02 stream 18b in mixer 19' to produce
a combined stream 19 "ensures a good mixing result").
Whatever differences may exist between their respective processes,
Palmer and Golomb recycle exhaust gas from a turbine back to a combustor
to improve thermal efficiencies and reduce pollutants. This commonality
supports the Examiner's proposal to combine Palmer's exhaust recycling
line 57 with compressed air stream 51 into a mixed gas supply line going
into first combustor 3 to improve mixing results and efficiency. Even if
Palmer and Golomb "teach mutually exclusive uses for most of the available
heat from a turbine exhaust stream" as Appellants contend (Reply Br. 2), the
rejection does not change those uses. To the contrary, the Examiner retains
Palmer's process intact except for adding the claimed mixed gas supply line
to improve mixing in a predictable manner based on Golomb's teachings to
that effect. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (hindsight
argument is of no moment where the Examiner provides a sufficient, non-
hindsight reason to combine the references).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
6
Appeal2018-004527
Application 14/331,361
Claim 13
Rejected Over Palmer and Mittricker
Independent claim 13 recites a gas turbine facility with similar
features to those recited in claim 1, except a combustion gas valve and an
oxidant flow regulating valve that regulate flow rates through the heat
exchanger back to the combustor. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App'x). The
Examiner relies on Palmer to teach the basic features of a gas turbine facility
and Mittricker to teach the claimed valves, which essentially replace the
supply pipes of claim 1. The Examiner correctly finds that Palmer teaches
that the flow of air streams 51 is controlled at upstream location 30 of first
heat exchanger 2 and recycled exhaust stream 57 is controlled separately at
upstream location 60 of first heat exchanger 2, as claimed, to provide near
stoichiometric combustion of the fuel in fuel stream 26 in first combustor 3.
Ans. 4 (citing Palmer i-f 50). The Examiner correctly finds that Mittricker
teaches regulating valves to control the flow for combustion gas 116a and
oxidant 118 to achieve substantially stoichiometric combustion. Final Act.
10-11 (citing Mittricker i-f 2). The Examiner reasons correctly that it would
have been obvious to modify Palmer's control of combustion and oxidant
gases using such flow regulating valves, as taught by Mittricker, to obtain
substantially stoichiometric combustion, as Mittricker teaches. Id. at 11.
Appellants' arguments amount to individual attacks on the references
by arguing that Palmer does not disclose the claimed valves, and Mittricker
does not disclose a heat exchanger. Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3. As such,
they are not persuasive where Palmer teaches the claimed gas turbine facility
to include a heat exchanger and flow control of the claimed combustion gas
and oxidant gases upstream of the heat exchanger as discussed above.
7
Appeal2018-004527
Application 14/331,361
The Examiner proposes to apply Mittricker' s teaching to use flow
controllers 116a, 118 to control gas flow valves and gaseous streams to
provide substantially stoichiometric combustion of the gaseous elements.
Final Act. 10-11; see Mittricker i-fi-12, 28, 29, 34, Fig. IA. The Examiner
applies this teaching to Palmer to provide similar benefits in a predictable
manner to Palmer's process, which desires to achieve near stoichiometric
combustion like Mittricker. Ans. 4; see Palmer i150; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
The Examiner's determination is supported by a rational underpinning based
on the express teachings of Mittricker of the benefits of using flow control
valves, as claimed, to control flow rates to achieve a near stoichiometric
combustion, as Palmer also desires to do with flow control, and as Mittricker
teaches to do using flow rate regulating valves, as claimed.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 13.
Prior Art Rejections of Claims 2-5, 8-10, 12, and 14-20
Appellants do not present arguments for the Examiner's rejections of
dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, 12, and 14--20. See Final Act. 4--15; Appeal
Br. 3-9. Thus, we summarily sustain the rejections of those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1---6, 8-10, and 12-20.
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
8