Ex Parte Jubb et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

12084601 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 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.
12/084,601 05/06/2008 Iain Jubb 2005P02168WOUS 1019
22116 7590 09/26/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 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 IAIN JUBB, PETER MARTIN, and
VICTORIA SANDERSON
Appeal 2016-001219
Application 12/084,601
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 11, 15—17, 19, 20, 24—26, and 28—31. No other claims are pending.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-001219
Application 12/084,601
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 11, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
11. A combustion apparatus comprising:
a fuel mixing device that mixes a fuel with an oxidant,
wherein the fuel mixing device comprises a first swirler
comprising a first plurality of wedge pieces arranged
circumferentially spaced around a first annular base plate so as
to form, between adjacent wedge pieces, respective slots for
guiding the oxidant generally radially inwardly, wherein one or
more ports for supplying fuel are located in the slots, for
creating a swirling mix of the fuel and oxidant that travels along
the pre-chamber to the combustion chamber;
a combustion chamber where combustion of the
fuel/oxidant mixture takes place;
a pre-chamber arranged between the fuel mixing device
and the combustion chamber; and
a gas supply device that supplies a gas to the pre­
chamber such that a film of gas is formed on the interior
surface of the pre-chamber so as to prevent a combustion flame
from the combustion chamber attaching itself to the pre­
chamber interior surface and damaging the pre-chamber,
wherein the supply of gas to the pre-chamber is such that where
the gas first reaches the interior surface of the pre-chamber it
forms a substantially continuous film of gas over the pre­
chamber interior surface,
wherein the gas supply device comprises a second swirler
for creating a swirling flow of the gas that travels over the
interior surface of the pre-chamber to the combustion chamber,
wherein the second swirler comprises a plurality of
respective slots for guiding the gas, the slots being arranged in a
circle and extending generally radially inwardly, and
wherein the second swirler further comprises a second
annular base plate and a second plurality of wedge pieces
arranged circumferentially spaced around the second annular
base plate so as to form between adjacent wedge pieces the
slots for guiding the gas, the wedge pieces being set back from
2
Appeal 2016-001219
Application 12/084,601
the radially inner edge of the second annular base plate thereby
to define an annular ledge on the second annular base plate
immediately radially outward of the radially inner edge.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 11, 15—17, 19, 20, 24—26, and 28—30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Bell (US 3,618,317;
issued Nov. 9, 1971, filed Apr. 17, 1969) andNorster et al. (US 6,532,726
B2; issued Mar. 18, 2003).
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Bell, Norster, and Leen et al. (US 2005/0039458 Al;
published Feb. 24, 2005).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner cites Bell for the secondary swirler having a plurality
of wedges set back from the radially inner edge of the second annular base
to define an annular ledge, as recited in claim 11. See Ans. 3—4, 12—15.
Specifically, the Examiner cites Bell’s swirl vanes 74 as the claimed “second
plurality of wedge pieces” of the second swirler, with Bell’s Figure 2
depicting the swirl vanes 74 “being set back from the radially inner edge of
the second annular base plate thereby to define an annular ledge.” Ans. 3—4,
13—15. Bell’s Figures 2 and 3 are reproduced below:
3
Appeal 2016-001219
Application 12/084,601
Bell’s Figures 2 and 3 depict an air-fuel mixer 34 having a second swirler
72, secondary swirl vanes 74, pre-chamber 16, rim 18, and combustion
chamber 14, with Figure 2 depicting a perspective view and Figure 3
depicting a diagrammatical axial cross sectional view. See Bell, col. 4,1.
67—col. 5,1. 9.
Appellants argue Bell does not teach or suggest that its swirl vanes 74
are set back from the radially inner edge to define an annular ledge. Appeal
Br. 8—9. Specifically, Appellants argue Bell’s Figure 2 includes a cut-away
section that is inconclusive in terms of the arrangement of vanes 74 with
respect to the radially inner edge, while Bell’s Figure 3 more clearly shows
that vanes 74 that extend all the way to the radially inner edge of the second
annular base, without an annular ledge. Appeal Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 2—3.
We agree with Appellants that a person of ordinary skill would not
understand Bell’s Figure 2 to teach or suggest an annular ledge or set back
vanes as claimed. The arrangement of vanes is unclear in Bell’s Figure 2,
and Bell’s Figure 3 depicts the vanes and base plate without the claimed
annular ledge or set back. In contrast, Bell’s Figure 3 appears to depict the
primary swirl vanes 58 as radially set back from opening 3.
4
Appeal 2016-001219
Application 12/084,601
Accordingly, we do not agree with the Examiner that Bell discloses
the second swirler having a plurality of wedges set back to define an annular
ledge as required by claim 11. The Examiner does not cite Norster to cure
this deficiency of Bell. See Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 13—15; but see Norster, Fig.
4 (appearing to depict a ledge and a plurality of wedges set back from an
annular inner edge).
As such, based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner erred in the rejection of independent claim 11. Independent
claim 20 includes equivalent limitations, and we find the Examiner erred in
the rejection of independent claim 20 for the same reasons. We do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 or 20, nor
dependent claims 15—17, 19, 24—26, and 28—31.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
11, 15-17, 19, 20, 24—26, and 28—31.
REVERSED
5