UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 23, 20212020004480 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/895,784 12/03/2015 James B. Hoke 1213-28216WOUS 4914 11943 7590 03/23/2021 Getz Balich LLC 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 Farmington, CT 06032 EXAMINER BURKE, THOMAS P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2021 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): shenry@getzbalich.com uspto@getzbalich.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES B. HOKE, RANDAL G. MCKINNEY, and ALBERT K. CHEUNG ____________ Appeal 2020-004480 Application 14/895,784 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 8–12, and 14–23.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies Corporation, formerly United Technologies Corporation. See Miscellaneous Incoming Letter (filed Apr. 23, 2020). 2 Claims 5, 7, and 13 are canceled. Amendment 3–4 (filed Dec. 4, 2019). Appeal 2020-004480 Application 14/895,784 2 In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed December 3, 2015 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed January 22, 2020 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 4, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 30, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed May 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to gas turbine engines. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 14, and 18 are independent. Claim 14, reproduced below from page 22 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 14. A turbofan gas turbine engine combustor, comprising: a first fuel injection system in communication with a combustion chamber; a second fuel injection system that communicates with said combustion chamber downstream of said first fuel injection system to define a forward combustion zone forward of said second fuel injection system and a downstream combustion zone aft of said second fuel injection system, wherein said forward combustion zone defines twenty percent to fifty percent of a total volume of said combustor chamber and said downstream combustion zone defines fifty percent to eighty percent of said total volume of said combustor chamber; an inner liner; an outer liner; and a forward assembly between said inner liner and said outer liner, wherein said forward assembly includes a bulkhead liner that defines a bulkhead height, and wherein said inner liner and said outer liner are radially spaced between one hundred percent and two hundred percent of said bulkhead height axially proximate to said second fuel injection system. Appeal 2020-004480 Application 14/895,784 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting the claims on appeal: Shekleton US 5,277,021 Jan. 11, 1994 DuBell US 5,749,219 May 12, 1998 Matsumoto US 2007/0089419 A1 Apr. 26, 2007 Burd US 2007/0125093 A1 June 7, 2007 Dodo US 2007/0256416 A1 Nov. 8, 2007 REJECTIONS3 I. Claims 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DuBell, Matsumoto, and Burd. II. Claims 1–4, 6, 8–12, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DuBell, Dodo, Matsumoto, and Burd. III. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DuBell, Dodo, Matsumoto, Burd, and Shekleton. ANALYSIS Rejection I – Obviousness based on DuBell, Matsumoto, and Burd In rejecting independent claim 14, the Examiner finds that DuBell discloses a gas turbine engine combustor substantially as recited, including an inner liner, an outer liner, and a bulkhead having a bulkhead height, but does not disclose explicitly the recited sizes of the forward and downstream combustion zones and the radial spacing of the inner and outer liners. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner relies on Matsumoto to teach the recited sizing of 3 The Final Action included a rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see Final Act. 16–17), but this claim was canceled in the Amendment filed on April 25, 2018, and, thus, is not involved in this appeal. Appeal 2020-004480 Application 14/895,784 4 the combustion zones. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner finds that Burd teaches managing the height between inner and outer liners of a combustor to reduce combustor residence time. Id. at 5 (citing Burd ¶ 41). The Examiner finds that “the height between the inner and outer liner walls is recognized as a result effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result.” Id. (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)). The Examiner determines that “it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious . . . to modify DuBell . . . to provide the height between combustor liner walls as taught by Burd in order to reduce combustor residence time.” Id. (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Appellant argues that “Burd is incapable of establishing the general conditions as alleged in the Office Action.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Burd ¶ 41). Appellant asserts that Burd teaches “several ratio ranges of H1/H3 which may impact combustor residence times. However, the disclosure of Burd is limited to ratios of only those particular combustor heights (i.e., the bulkhead height H1 and the combustor exit height H3).” Id. at 14 (citing Burd ¶ 43). According to Appellant, “the teaching of Burd, that the combustor exit height H3 can be optimized relative to the bulkhead height H1, cannot reasonably be understood to also apply to every other radial spacing between liner panels of the combustor.” Id. at 15. The Examiner responds that DuBell’s “second fuel injection system (36, 34, and 28) is ‘axially proximate’ to the combustor exit.” Ans. 4 (citing DuBell, Fig. 1). The Examiner explains “that the term ‘proximate’ is defined by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary as ‘very or relatively close Appeal 2020-004480 Application 14/895,784 5 or near.’” Id. (citing Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https:// www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/proximate (accessed March 9, 2020)). According to the Examiner, “the relative heights [in DuBell’s combustor] which are optimized include both the bulkhead height as well as a height which is axially proximate to the second fuel injection system.” Id. at 5 (citing DuBell, Fig. 1). In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that DuBell’s fuel nozzle 36 (i.e., second fuel injection system) is “not ‘very or relatively close or near,’ to the combustor exit 26 as the Answer defines ‘proximate.’” Reply Br. 2 (citing Ans. 4). Rather, “[t]he combustor of DuBell includes a substantial axial spacing between fuel nozzles 36 in the second zone and the combustor exit 26.” Id. (citing DuBell, Fig. 1). We agree with Appellant. DuBell discloses, with reference to Figure 1, annular combustor 10 including outer liner 16 and inner liner 20. DuBell, 3:20–27. Figure 1 of DuBell is reproduced below. Appeal 2020-004480 Application 14/895,784 6 Figure 1 of DuBell depicts a combustor including primary zone 30 fueled by nozzle 31 (id. at 3:34–40) and second zone 32 fueled by nozzle 36 (id. at 3:48–50). Aft end 26 is open to discharge combustion products to a turbine (not shown). Id. at 3:27–30. As discussed above, the Examiner takes the position that aft end 26 of the combustor is axially proximate nozzle 36 (i.e., the “second fuel injection system” as recited in claim 14). See Ans. 4–5. However, although the height of DuBell’s annular combustor at aft end 26 appears to correspond to a radial spacing of outer liner 16 and inner liner 20, we agree with Appellant that aft end 26 is not “very or relatively close or near” nozzle 36 (i.e., the second fuel injection system). See Reply Br. 2. Rather, Figure 1 of DuBell appears to show that aft end 26 and nozzle 36 are separated by a significant amount of axial space (i.e., nearly half of the overall combustor length), and the radial spacing between the inner and outer liners appears to vary between aft end 26 and nozzle 36—notably, the liner spacing at aft end 26 appears to be substantially smaller than the spacing at fuel nozzle 36. Moreover, Appellant’s Specification describes “a height H of the combustion chamber 66 between the liners 72, 74 at the radial fuel injection system 120 location.” Spec. ¶ 77 (emphasis added). According to the Specification, “[t]he height H as defined herein is the radial distance between the liner panels 72, 74 within the combustion chamber 66 proximate the radial fuel injection system 120 location.” Id. (emphasis added). In other words, in view of the Specification, the radial spacing between inner and outer liners “axially proximate to said second fuel injection system” as recited in claim 14 appears to mean the height between the inner and outer liners at the second fuel injection system location. Given Appeal 2020-004480 Application 14/895,784 7 that DuBell’s aft end 26 is axially spaced from nozzle 36, the radial spacing between the liners at aft end 26 is not at the second fuel injection system. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation that applying Burd’s teaching of combustor exit height to DuBell’s combustor would result in the recited liner spacing proximate the second fuel injector system is not supported by the evidence. The Examiner also appears to rely on Burd’s statement that combustor residence time can be reduced by management of the liner spacing and air flow through the combustor as teaching the recited liner spacing. Ans. 5–6 (citing Burd ¶ 41). Initially, the discussion referenced by the Examiner precedes and introduces the exit height discussion of paragraph 42 noted above and, thus, does not appear to be a distinct teaching as suggested by the Examiner. Furthermore, the Examiner fails to explain how the discussion of cylinder and truncated cone volumes (see id. at 6) relates to the recited liner spacing proximate the second fuel injection system. Although Burd teaches that combustor residence time can be reduced by managing the ratio between bulkhead height H1 and exit height H3 (Burd ¶¶ 41–43), it is unclear how or why this disclosure would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the radial spacing of DuBell’s inner and outer liners at a location “axially proximate to said second fuel injection system” as recited in claim 14. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14, or its dependent claims 15–17, as being unpatentable over DuBell, Matsumoto, and Burd. Independent claim 18 contains similar recitations as claim 14, including the liner spacing proximate the second fuel injection system, and the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings as for claim 14. Appeal Appeal 2020-004480 Application 14/895,784 8 Br. 23 (Claims App.); Final Act. 7–9. Accordingly, for the same reasons as set forth above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18, or its dependent claims 19 and 20, as being unpatentable over DuBell, Matsumoto, and Burd. Rejections II and III – Obviousness based on DuBell, Matsumoto, Burd, and one or more of Dodo and Shekleton Independent claim 1 recites a similar liner spacing proximate the second fuel injector system as discussed above regarding claim 14. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same deficient findings as discussed above regarding claim 14. Final Act. 10–13. The Examiner relies on Dodo and Shekleton for teaching additional features, but does not articulate any findings or reasoning that would remedy the aforementioned deficiency in the combination of DuBell, Matsumoto, and Burd. See id. at 10–18. Accordingly, for the same reasons as set forth above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8–12, and 21–23, as being unpatentable over DuBell, Matsumoto, Burd, and one or more of Dodo and Shekleton. CONCLUSION In summary, Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 14–20 103 DuBell, Matsumoto, Burd 14–20 1–4, 6, 8–12, 21, 22 103 DuBell, Dodo, Matsumoto, Burd 1–4, 6, 8–12, 21, 22 Appeal 2020-004480 Application 14/895,784 9 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 23 103 DuBell, Dodo, Matsumoto, Burd, Shekleton 23 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 8–12, 14–23 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation