Ex Parte Lovett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2018

14083040 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/083,040 11943 7590 O""Shea Getz P.C. FILING DATE 11/18/2013 11/30/2018 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 Farmington, CT 06032 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeffery A. Lovett 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. PA-0024930-US-AA 6261 EXAMINER WALTHOUR, SCOTT J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2018 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): uspto@osheagetz.com shenry@osheagetz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFERY A. LOVETT, DARIN A. KRAUS, SCOTT D. PHILLIPS, DANIEL J. MICKA, and PATRICKMAGARI Appeal2018-005167 Application 14/083,040 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL W. KIM, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-14, and 16-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, "[ t ]he real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation." Br. 3. Appeal2018-005167 Application 14/083,040 According to Appellants, their "disclosure relates to gas turbine engines, and more particularly to a fuel injection system therefor." Spec. ,r 3. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A fuel injection system for a gas turbine engine compnsmg: a vane within an augmentor section of the gas turbine engine that is downstream of a combustor section of the gas turbine engine, the vane in an airflow path within the gas turbine engine, said vane includes an air channel with an outlet in communication with the airflow path; and a fuel nozzle within said vane operable to inject fuel into said air channel to at least partially premix and prevaporize the fuel with a secondary airflow from within said vane in said air channel prior to entry into the airflow path through the outlet, wherein said fuel nozzle is directed substantially transverse with respect to the secondary airflow through said air channel, wherein said secondary airflow is received from a secondary airflow path, and wherein said secondary airflow path is defined by an outer engine structure and an inner engine structure of the gas turbine engme. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 7-14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Hautman et al. (US 2010/0126177 Al, pub. May 27, 2010) ("Hautman), Clements et al. (US 5,685,140, iss. Nov. 11, 1997) ("Clements"), and Haynes (US 2007/0151250 Al, pub. July 5, 2007). 2 Appeal2018-005167 Application 14/083,040 ANALYSIS As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "a fuel nozzle." Br., Claims App. In response to the Final Office Action, Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is in error because "Hautman fails to explicitly indicate the structural element associated with ... fuel 106, much less a fuel nozzle within a vane operable to inject fuel into an air channel." Br. 8 ( emphasis added). In reply, the Examiner determines the following: The [E]xaminer disagrees with Appellant[s'] argument that Hautman fails to teach the structural element associated with fuel 106 and therefore fails to teach "a fuel nozzle" to perform such fuel injection. It is clear from Hautman's disclosure, both in Fig[ure] 6 and in para[graph] [0032], that fuel 106 is injected within passageway 100, and therefore this additional fuel is not the pilot combustion gases received via inboard end 82. Hautman does not depict or describe the details of the structure [that] injects this additional fuel 106, yet some fuel-injecting structure is necessarily implied by Hautman' s teaching of injecting additional fuel 106 within passageway 100. Claims 1, 10, [and] 16 do not recite any structural details of the fuel nozzle itself which would differentiate the claimed fuel nozzle from Hautman's implied fuel-injecting structure, nor does the claimed fuel nozzle function in a manner which differs from Hautman's implied fuel-injecting structure (i.e.[,] they each simply inject fuel). Thus Hautman's implied fuel-injecting structure reads on the claimed "fuel nozzle." Answer 2-3 ( emphasis added). The above is inadequate to support the rejection, however. As discussed, claim 1 requires the structure of a fuel nozzle. The Examiner does not find that Hautman disclose a fuel nozzle. Instead, the Examiner relies on a finding that "Hautman's implied fuel- injecting structure" "function[ s] in [the same] manner" as "the claimed fuel nozzle"-"they each simply inject fuel." We are persuaded that such 3 Appeal2018-005167 Application 14/083,040 findings do not necessarily establish that Hautman discloses whatever structure is required by Appellants' "fuel nozzle," as recited by claim 1. For example, we are unclear as to why fuel cannot be injected without a nozzle. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 10 and 16, which each include a similar recitation, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 4, 5, 7- 9, 11-14, 17, and 18 that depend from the independent claims. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-14, and 16-18. REVERSED 4