Ex Parte Varanasi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 2014

12100029 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KRIPA VARANASI, NITIN BHATE, JEFFREY SCOTT GOLDMEER, and GEOFFREY DAVID MYERS ____________________ Appeal 2013-001034 Application 12/100,029 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 16–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leen, Sforzini, and Hsu.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Leen, US 6,986,253 B2 (iss. Jan. 17, 2006); Sforzini, US 2,545,495 (iss. Mar. 20, 1951); Hsu, US 2007/0031639 A1 (pub. Feb. 8, 2007). Appeal 2013-001034 Application 12/100,029 2 The Claimed Subject Matter Appellants’ claimed invention relates to surfaces in contact with hydrocarbon fluids that incorporate a texture designed to inhibit the formation of coke, soot, and oil deposits on those surfaces. Spec. ¶ 1. Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. A method of preventing thermal hydrocarbon degradation deposits on a surface of a gas turbine component, the method comprising: providing a turbine component within a combustion chamber where the component is contacted by hydrocarbon fuel or combustion products thereof during operation of the chamber, supplying hydrocarbon fluid to the combustion chamber and combusting the hydrocarbon fluid within the chamber, wherein the surface of the component comprises a material having a nominal liquid wettability sufficient to generate, with reference to an oil, a nominal contact angle; wherein a plurality of features have been disposed on the surface of the component to form an anti-deposition textured surface, wherein the plurality of features have a size, shape, and orientation selected such that the surface has an effective wettability sufficient to generate, with reference to an oil, an effective contact angle of greater than the nominal contact angle; and wherein the features comprise a width dimension (a), and a spacing dimension (b), and wherein the features prevent the hydrocarbon fluid or combustion product thereof from penetrating into the textured surface and thereby reduce adhesion of thermal hydrocarbon deposits to the textured surface of the turbine component. Appeal 2013-001034 Application 12/100,029 3 Independent claim 21 is similar to claim 1, and independent claim 202 is also similar except that it is directed to an apparatus rather than a method. OPINION Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to articulate adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings to support the determination of obviousness. Appeal Br. 4–11; Reply Br. 1–4. For the reasons that follow, we agree. The Examiner found that Leen discloses a combustor for a gas engine (gas turbine engine 10), as claimed, including a splashplate (splashplate portion 77) disposed at an end of the combustion chamber, except that Leen does not disclose that the surface of the splashplate comprises a material and features as claimed. Ans. 4–5.3 The Examiner found that Hsu discloses a surface comprised of the claimed material and features missing from Leen. Id. at 6, 11 (citing Hsu ¶ 11; Fig. 4). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to modify the surface of Leen’s splashplate to be comprised of a material and features as disclosed by Hsu, “for the purpose of reducing the adhesion of drops of coking to the solid surface on and about the fuel nozzle.” Ans. 6–7. The Examiner provided two reasons in support of this conclusion. First, the Examiner reasoned there is a rational technical basis to predict that the 2 It is unclear how claim 20 can recite an “h/a” ratio when a height (“h”) is not recited in the claim. See Spec. ¶ 46 (defining “h” as a height dimension). 3 Parentheticals are Leen’s nomenclature. Appeal 2013-001034 Application 12/100,029 4 surface features taught by Hsu would be useful in a turbine engine component to reduce hydrocarbon formation because Hsu discloses that the reference liquid may be a hydrocarbon. Ans. 11–12 (citing Hsu ¶ 11). Second, the Examiner reasoned that Hsu provides a solution to the problem identified by Sforzini (i.e., coke deposits near the fuel injector are undesirable and detrimental to the combustion process). Id. at 5 (citing Sforzini, 1:9–14), 11. We analyze these reasons in light of the references. The portion of Hsu identified by the Examiner does not support the assertion that Hsu’s tailored surface properties would be useful in a turbine engine component to reduce hydrocarbon formation. See id. at 11–12 (citing Hsu ¶ 11). Hsu discloses that a commonly accepted measure of liquid wettability is the value of static contact angle 140 formed between surface 120 and a tangent to the point of contact between droplet 150 of a reference liquid and surface 120. Hsu ¶ 11; Fig. 1. Hsu further discloses that the reference liquid may be any liquid of interest, such as, a liquid that contains at least one hydrocarbon (oil, petroleum, gasoline, organic solvent or the like). Id. The Examiner has not explained persuasively how a disclosure that a hydrocarbon may serve as a reference liquid for a measure of liquid wettability supports the determination that Hsu’s tailored surface properties would be useful in a turbine engine component to reduce hydrocarbon formation. To the contrary, as Appellants correctly point out, Hsu’s tailored surface is suitable for use in components at risk of ice formation not in the high temperature environment of a splashplate. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3; Appeal 2013-001034 Application 12/100,029 5 Hsu ¶¶ 44, 45; see also Spec. ¶ 4 (noting the high temperatures of fuel wetted surfaces in gas turbine environments). Further, given that Hsu is silent regarding reducing coke buildup or use in a high temperature environment such as a combustor, the Examiner also has not explained persuasively how Hsu provides a solution to Sforzini’s problem (coking on and about the fuel nozzles can impede uniform combustion). See Sforzini, 1:5–14, 19–23. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–14 and 16– 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 16–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leen, Sforzini, and Hsu. REVERSED hh