Ex Parte Hoke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

13014480 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/014,480 01/26/2011
135291 7590 12/03/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James B. Hoke
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.
57185US01 (U420448US) 1686
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES B. HOKE
Appeal 2018-003194
Application 13/014,480
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-003194
Application 13/014,480
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1, 3-14, and 16-18. Claims 2 and 15 were cancelled during
prosecution. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claims are directed "generally to fuel injectors for gas
turbine engines and more particularly to a fuel injector assembly." Spec.
,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fuel injector assembly for a combustor comprising:
a fuel nozzle configured to inject fuel into the combustor,
wherein the fuel nozzle comprises an axial inflow swirler
arranged within a nozzle air passage configured to produce a first
airstream into the combustor, a fuel filmer lip configured to form
a first fuel film at a downstream end of the fuel nozzle, a fuel
swirler disposed upstream of the fuel filmer lip and radially
outward of the axial inflow swirler and located outside of the
nozzle air passage, and a fuel filmer associated with the fuel
swirler, the fuel filmer terminating proximate the fuel filmer lip,
the fuel filmer proximate the downstream end of the fuel nozzle;
a first radial inflow swirler having a first plurality of vanes
configured to produce a second airstream into the combustor,
wherein the first radial inflow swirler is mounted to the
combustor as opposed to the fuel nozzle and spaced radially
outward of the downstream end of the fuel nozzle; and
a radial inflow swirler cone extending from the vanes of
the first radial inflow swirler through a bulkhead of the
combustor and into a combustion chamber of the combustor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal2018-003194
Application 13/014,480
Simmons
Graves
Hoke
Tanner
us 3,980,233
us 5,987,889
US 6,240,731Bl
CA 2 533 045
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Sept. 14, 1976
Nov. 23, 1999
June 5, 2001
Sept. 21, 2006
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoke, Simmons, and Tanner.
Ans. 2.
Claims 4, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hoke, Simmons, Tanner, and Graves. Id.
ANALYSIS
Appellant characterizes the prior art at issue as falling into two
categories: air blast (Hoke and Simmons) and pressure atomizing (Tanner)
fuel nozzles. As Appellant states, air blast fuel nozzles are configured such
that "the air swirlers are physically attached to the nozzle" (App. Br. 7) and
"rely on airflow to generate the fuel spray" (id. (quoting Hoke Dec. ,r,r 12-
16) ), while pressure atomizing fuel nozzles "rely on fuel pressure and fuel
swirl to generate spray via a high velocity droplet breakup" and do not need
air. Hoke Dec. ,r,r 12-16. According to Appellant, "one skilled in the related
arts would not be motivated to combine the teaching of the 'air blast' and
'pressure atomizing' fuel nozzles to reach Appellant's claimed invention."
App. Br. 7.
The Examiner makes light of Appellant's arguments by merely
responding that "Appellant uses different adjectives to describe the fuel
nozzles" at issue, but the Examiner does not adequately address the
3
Appeal2018-003194
Application 13/014,480
differences between the two types of nozzles nor does he address
Appellant's arguments that one of skill in this art would not take features of
one type of nozzle to combine with the other. For example, Appellant states
that "Hoke and/or Simmons are configured for specific fuel/air mixtures,
which when combined with the alleged teachings of Tanner would not
provide the desired fuel to air mixtures and disbursements as desired in the
present application." App. Br. 9. As such, Appellant provides clear
argument as to why the features are not combinable beyond merely stating
that the nozzles are different types.
The Examiner also fails to even acknowledge that Appellant has
submitted declaration evidence in support of the fact that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have combined features from the two types of
nozzles. We note that the Declarant is also the inventor here, which often
diminishes the weight given to such declarations, but we also note that Mr.
Hoke is the inventor of one of the prior art patents being applied in the
rejection. Regardless of the weight given, the Examiner's failure to even
acknowledge the declaration evidence is in error.
The Examiner has not adequately explained what would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Hoke/Simmons device so as to
separate the radial inflow swirler from the fuel nozzle and mount it to the
combustor as taught by Tanner, when properly taking into account the
declaration evidence setting forth the differences between the fuel nozzle of
Hoke/Simmons as compared to the fuel nozzle of Tanner.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1, 3-14, and 16-18.
REVERSED
4