Ex Parte PODROG

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 10, 2018

13466125 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/466, 125 05/08/2012 DAVID J. PODROG 106108 7590 07/12/2018 NOV A IP LAW, PLLC 7420 Heritage Village Plaza Suite 101 Gainesville, VA 20155 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. PODROG-2012-1 5230 EXAMINER GONZALEZ, JULIO CESAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/12/2018 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): jgbrown.nova@gmail.com novaipoffice@gmail.com jbrown2941@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID J. PODROG Appeal 2016-005884 Application 13/466125 Technology Center 2800 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, LILAN REN, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-9 and 31-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed May 8, 2012 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated May 18, 2015 ("Final"); Appeal Brief filed Oct. 22, 2015 ("Br."); Examiner's Answer dated Mar. 9, 2016 ("Ans."). 2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-005884 Application 13/466, 125 Claim 1 is representative of the invention, and reads as follows: 1. A hafnium gas turbine engine comprising: an X-ray machine, a mass of hafnium, a heat exchange apparatus, and a gas turbine wherein the X-ray machine is configured such that X-rays from the X-ray machine will strike the hafnium when the X-ray machine is activated, and wherein the mass of hafnium is configured such that gamma rays from the hafnium are capable of heating a gas within the heat exchange apparatus, and wherein the heat exchange apparatus is configured to direct the heated gas towards the turbine to drive the turbine. Br. 19, Claims Appendix. Claim 31, the only other independent claim on appeal, recites "[a] method for driving a gas turbine engine," and includes limitations similar to those recited in claim 1, e.g., a step of "configuring the mass of hafnium and heat exchange apparatus so that gamma rays emitted from the hafnium are capable of heating a gas within the heat exchange apparatus." Br. 22, Claims Appendix. The claims stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as follows: 1. claims 1-5, 31-35, and 39 over Diaz (US 2007/0119148 Al, pub. May 31, 2007) in view of Flynt (US 3,831,373, iss. Aug. 27, 1974); 2. claims 6 and 36 over Diaz and Flynt, further in view of Hoffman (US 2008/0104939 Al, pub. May 8, 2008); 3. claims 8 and 38 over Diaz and Flynt, further in view ofNakhamkin (US 5,778,675, iss. July 14, 1998); and 2 Appeal 2016-005884 Application 13/466, 125 4. claims 7 and 37 over Diaz and Flynt, further in view of Merchant (US 2013/0031910 Al, pub. Feb. 7, 2013). Ans. 2-3. The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first and second paragraphs. Id. at 3. Diaz discloses a method and system for producing electricity wherein X-rays generated by an X-ray machine are directed onto a mass of hafnium, causing liberation of gamma radiation. Diaz ,r 6. The gamma rays, in tum, are directed at a mass of water in a collecting tank. Id. The gamma rays heat the water to produce steam which causes a buildup in pressure. Id. Pressurized steam is channeled to a turbine, which is connected to a current generator. Id. Flynt discloses a pumped air storage peaking power system comprising a rotating shaft connecting a compressor and a gas turbine, and a dynamoelectric machine connected to the gas turbine output shaft. Flynt 3:50, 58---61. Flynt describes a pumping mode in which the dynamoelectric machine drives the compressor to pump air to an air storage reservoir. Id. at 5:64---67. Flynt also discloses a peaking mode in which stored, compressed air from the air storage reservoir flows through a heat exchanger where it is preheated by gaseous combustion products from the turbine. Id. at 6:25-30. The preheated air is then combined with fuel in a combustor to form gaseous combustion products which drive the turbine. Id. at 6:30-32. Flynt discloses that during the peaking mode, air flow through the compressor is reduced, thereby reducing power losses in the system. Id. at 6: 13-18. Flynt further discloses that turbine windage losses that occur during the pumping mode can be reduced by introducing steam at the turbine inlet. Id. at 4:65-5:1, 5:9-11. Steam is provided to the turbine by passing water to a heat exchanger where the water absorbs heat released by compressed air passing to the reservoir. Id. at 5: 15-19. 3 Appeal 2016-005884 Application 13/466, 125 The Examiner finds Diaz discloses the invention as claimed in independent claims 1 and 31, with the exception of an explicit disclosure of a heat exchange apparatus. Final 6-7. The Examiner finds Flynt discloses a power system in which a heat exchanger is used to heat air prior to combining the air with fuel in a combustor. Id. at 7. The Examiner further finds Flynt discloses directing combustion products from the combustor to a turbine which drives a generator. Id. The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have modified Diaz's system and method to use a heat exchange apparatus for the purpose of providing an improved peaking power system as disclosed by Flynt. Id. Appellant contends the Examiner's findings are insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness as to independent claims 1 and 31. See Br. 16-18. Appellant argues, inter alia, that neither Diaz nor Flynt discloses or suggests configuring a mass of hafnium in a manner that is capable of heating a gas within a heat exchange apparatus. See id. As explained by Appellant, Diaz teaches heating water in a tank using gamma rays from hafnium. Id. at 16; Diaz ,r 6. Flynt discloses the use of two heat exchangers: a first heat exchanger wherein water absorbs heat from compressed air and is converted to steam, and a second heat exchanger wherein air is pre-heated by gaseous combustion products from the turbine. Flynt 4:38--49, 5:15-22; see Br. at 17. The Examiner has not explained with sufficient clarity why one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected the addition of a single heat exchanger to Diaz's system to provide an improved peaking power system. See Br. 1 7. In this regard, we note that Flynt discloses improved performance during peaking mode is achieved via a valve that selectively throttles air to the compressor. See Flynt 3:21-38. Moreover, even assuming one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Diaz to include a 4 Appeal 2016-005884 Application 13/466, 125 heat exchanger, the Examiner has not explained why the ordinary artisan would have configured the mass of hafnium used to heat the water in Diaz's system in such a manner that it would be capable of heating a gas within the heat exchanger, as required by the claims. See generally, Final 6-7; Ans. 3-7. The Examiner has not explained how the additional references relied upon in above-listed grounds of rejection 2--4 cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's combination of Diaz and Flynt. See Final 8-10. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 and 31-39 are reversed. REVERSED 5