Ex Parte Williams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 2016

12500649 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/500,649 07/10/2009 120158 7590 03/02/2016 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Rolls-Royce) 11 S. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Brandon Phillip Williams 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. 57502-231268/DVNl 1292 2764 EXAMINER GOYAL,ARUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2016 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): indocket@btlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRANDON PHILLIP WILLIAMS and KEVIN EUGENE THOMPSON Appeal2013-010346 Application 12/500,649 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Brandon Phillip Williams and Kevin Eugene Thompson (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) claims 1-3 and 11-13 as unpatentable over Saitoh (US 6,880,340 B2; iss. Apr. 19, 2005) and Steinhorsson (US 6,560,964 B2; iss. May 13, 2003). Claims 4--10 and 14--19 have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2013-010346 Application 12/500,649 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to "fuel nozzles for gas turbine engines, and more particularly, to air swirlers for fuel nozzles having aerodynamically shaped swept swirl vanes." Spec. 1, 11. 4--5; Figs. 1, 2, and 5-9. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A fuel nozzle for a gas turbine engine comprising: a) a nozzle body having a longitudinal axis; b) an annular air passage defined within the nozzle body; and c) a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart axially extending aerodynamic swirl vanes disposed within the annular air passage, each swirl vane having an axially swept cross- sectional profile along the radial extent thereof. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3. 11. and 13 Appellants do not present any substantive arguments regarding claims 1-3, 11, and 13. See Br. 8 (emphasis added) ("The issue to be reviewed on appeal is whether under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), the subject matter of claim 12 is patentable over [Saitoh and Steinhorsson]. "). Appellants explain that: In [Appellants'] after final Amendment and Response filed January 25, 2013, [Appellants] merely sought to rewrite claim 12 in independent form by canceling claim 12 and incorporating the additional features thereof into claim 1. However, the Examiner's Advisory Action mailed February 7, 2013 continued the final rejection of claims 1-3 and 11-13 and did not enter [Appellants'] January 25, 2013 amendments. Br. 5. Appellants argue that "these amendments should have been entered as they reduce the issues for appeal." Id. at 6. 2 Appeal2013-010346 Application 12/500,649 At the outset, we note that entry or non-entry of amendments is not an appealable matter, but rather is a petitionable matter, and thus is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002); and In re Mindick, 371F.2d892, 894 (CCPA 1967) (refusal of examiner to enter an amendment of claims is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.181, and not by appeal to the Board). Further, although Appellants only argue the rejection of claim 12, claims 1-3, 11, and 13 are nevertheless before us on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.31(c) (2015) ("An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office."). Thus, Appellants have waived any argument of error for claims 1-3, 11, and 13, and we summarily sustain the rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, [] the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived."). Claim 12 Claim 12 depends from independent claim 1 and recites "wherein the cross-sectional profile of each swirl vane has proportions that vary along the radial extent of the swirl vane." The Examiner finds Steinhorsson' s vane structure being incorporated in its entirety in Saitoh's apparatus, Saitoh [in view of] Steinhorsson further teaches that the cross-sectional profile of each swirl vane has proportions (chord and length) that vary along the radial extent of the swirl vane (vane being axially swept as taught by Saitoh would obviously have radially variable length). 3 Appeal2013-010346 Application 12/500,649 Final Act. 4. In the Answer, the Examiner further explains that Saitoh alone does not teach a swirl vane having proportions that vary along the radial extent but rather that "[ o ]nee Saitoh' s swirler vanes have been modified to have aerodynamic profile in view of Steinhorsson, the resulting swirler vane would then have [a] cross-sectional profile having proportions that vary along the radial extent." Ans. 2. In particular, the Examiner finds Saitoh teaches axially swept swirler vanes 29 and 30, implying the length of the vanes to vary in the radial direction as discussed above. As shown in Saitoh's [Figure] 6, the length of the swirler vane is longer (ll) at the outer wall and smaller at the center (!2). Therefore, the resulting swirler vane of Saitoh modified in view of Steinhorsson would have length ll and thickness t at the outer wall and length 12 and thickness t at the center. The cross- sectional profile of each swirl vanes would then vary along the radial extent, i.e. lilt is greater than 12/t. Therefore, Saitoh modified in view of Steinhorsson teaches the claimed limitation, the cross-sectional profile of each swirl vane has proportions that vary along the radial extent of the swirl vane. Ans. 2-3 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend that the combination of Saitoh and Steinhorsson does not suggest the cross sectional profile of each swirl vane having proportions that vary along the radial extent of the swirl vane without the benefit of hindsight reasoning and use of [Appellant's] disclosure because Steinhorsson discloses a constant cross sectional profile along the radial extent thereof and Saitoh discloses no cross sections at all. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). For clarification of the claim limitation at issue, parent claim 1 is directed to a swirl vane having "an axially swept cross-sectional profile along the radial extent thereof." Dependent claim 12, at issue here, recites a 4 Appeal2013-010346 Application 12/500,649 swirl vane whose cross-sectional profile "has proportions that vary" along its radial extent. In other words, a change in cross-sectional profile is more than a mere enlargement of a profile (i.e., magnifying a profile does not change the "proportions" of the profile). Instead, claim 12 is directed to new and different cross-sectional profiles having different "proportions" along the extent of the vane. This understanding of a profile having different proportions along the extent of the vane is consistent with Appellants' Specification which states: With continued reference to Figs. 8-9, cross-sectional profile 208 of each swirl vane 206 can have proportions that vary along the radial extent of swirl vane 206. For example, in swirler 200, swirl vanes 206 each have a first airfoil shape at base portions 216 that transitions along the radial direction into a second airfoil shape at their tip portions 214, similar to the principles of swept wing theory. In Fig. 9, the large arrow schematically indicates a portion of the flow field at the tip region and the thin arrow schematically indicates a portion of the flow field at the base region. The flow field at the base region has a greater degree of swirl than at the tip region due to the greater camber at the base region compared to the tip region. It is envisioned and well within the scope of the subject disclosure that the airfoil geometry of the turning vanes of air swirlers with swept vanes can be defined using the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 4-digit definitions, 5-digit definitions, or the modified 4-/5-digit definitions. In each case, the airfoil shape is generated using analytical equations that describe the camber (curvature) of the mean line (geometric centerline) of the airfoil section, as well as the thickness or width distribution along the length of the airfoil. For example, it is possible to construct a swirler in accordance with the present invention in which each swirl vane has a cross- sectional profile defined at the tip by a NACA 2312 aiifoil and at the hub or base by a NA CA 2 412 airfoil, with a smooth transition between the two NACA airfoils along the radial extent of each 5 Appeal2013-010346 Application 12/500,649 swirl vane. Those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that any suitable cross-sectional profiles can be used, whether standard or non-standard, without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Spec. 11, 1. 9-12, 1. 5 (emphasis added); see also id. at Figs. 8 and 9. Thus, in accordance with Appellants' Specification, a profile of a vane with "proportions that vary along the radial extent of the swirl vane" is understood to mean that the airfoil geometry or shape (e.g., curvature) changes from the base to the tip of the swirl vane. See In re !VI orris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (In construing a claim term, we apply "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification."). Saitoh teaches swirler 39 having vanes that vary in axial length along the radial extent of the vane (i.e., they become larger). Saitoh, Figs. 1 and 6. Steinhorsson teaches aerodynamic swirl vanes (see Steinhorsson, col. 1, 16-20), and as Appellants point out, Steinhorsson's vanes have constant cross-sectional profiles (see Appeal Br. 9, 11; see also Steinhorsson, Fig. 8 and col. 8, 11. 23-37). In light of the teachings of Saitoh and Steinhorsson, the Examiner correctly determines that their combined teachings would result in a difference in profile length between the vane's tip and base. See Ans. 2. However, given that Steinhorsson teaches a constant profile along the vane's length (and Saitoh is silent in this regard), their combination teaches a profile that becomes larger or is magnified along the extent of the 6 Appeal2013-010346 Application 12/500,649 vane. The Examiner has made no finding that Steinhorsson's vanes include changes in the shape (e.g., curvature or geometry) of the cross-sectional profile along the radial extent as discussed supra. As such, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Saitoh and Steinhorsson disclose "the cross-sectional profile of each swirl vane [having] proportions that vary along the radial extent of the swirl vane," as recited in claim 12. 1 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 12 as unpatentable over Saitoh and Steinhorsson. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 11 and 13. We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 12. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 1 We note Appellants' discussion in the Specification of an example of vanes having different airfoil shapes between their base and tip portions "similar to the principles of swept wing theory." Spec. 11, 11. 9-13. 7