Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2021001732 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2022)

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. 15/878,886 01/24/2018 Eric Surawski 97461US02 (U310908USP) 2916 87521 7590 03/22/2022 Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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 ERIC SURAWSKI Appeal 2021-001732 Application 15/878,886 Technology Center 1700 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001732 Application 15/878,886 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The subject matter on appeal is directed to methods of supplying inert gas to an aircraft fuel tank. See claim 11 (Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.)). Sole independent claim 11, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 11. Method of supplying inert gas to a fuel tank of an aircraft, the method comprising: supplying a first reactant from a first reactant source, comprising a liquid fuel from a fuel tank, to a direct injection assembly; supplying a second reactant from a second reactant source to the direct injection assembly to mix the second reactant with the liquid fuel, wherein the liquid fuel is vaporized during the mixing with the second reactant within the direct injection assembly; directly injecting the mixed liquid fuel and second reactant into a catalytic reactor; catalyzing the mixed liquid fuel and second reactant within the catalytic reactor to generate an inert gas; and supplying the inert gas to the fuel tank to fill a ullage space of the fuel tank, wherein the liquid fuel is supplied to the direction injection assembly without the use of a heater. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections: I. Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 over Johnson2 in view of Liu3; II. Claim 17 over Johnson in view of Liu and Hamilton4; and III. Claim 18 over Johnson in view of Lui and Ribarov.5 2 US 2008/0128048 A1, published June 5, 2008. 3 US 2005/0274107 A1, published December 15, 2005. 4 US 3,847,298, issued November 12, 1974. 5 US 2016/0122004 A1, published May 5, 2016. Appeal 2021-001732 Application 15/878,886 3 Appellant presents substantive arguments for only independent claim 11 and relies on these arguments to address the rejections of the remaining claims. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we select claim 11 as representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal as to all grounds of rejections based on the arguments presented for claim 11. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Upon consideration of Appellant’s arguments in light of the evidence in the appeal record, we determine that Appellant has identified no such error. We therefore affirm the obviousness rejections for the reasons expressed by the Examiner. Final Act. 3-8; Ans. 3-6. We add the following for emphasis. According to the Examiner, Johnson teaches the claimed method but does not explicitly teach that “the liquid fuel is vaporized during the mixing with the second reactant within the direct injection assembly.” Final Act. 4. Rather, the Examiner finds that Johnson teaches “vaporizing the liquid fuel using an evaporator prior to combining it with an air stream at the mixing tee.” Id. The Examiner also undisputedly finds that “Liu teaches eliminating the need for a separate vaporizer for liquid hydrocarbon fuel feedstock being Appeal 2021-001732 Application 15/878,886 4 fed to a reactor by not vaporizing the fuel prior to injection into the mixing chamber,” by “atomizing the liquid fuel as it is injected through an atomizing nozzle into the mix within the mixing chamber where it vaporizes” and that “the vaporizer adds to the cost, weight, and complexity of the system.” Final Act. 4 (citing Liu ¶¶ 7, 8). Based on these teachings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan “to eliminate the evaporator of Johnson [by replacing it with Liu’s atomizer to] vaporize the liquid fuel during the mixing with the second reactant (i.e., air) within the direct injection assembly,” thus arriving at the claimed subject matter. Id. The Examiner finds that the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to do so in order to eliminate the evaporator which contributes to coke particulates in the flow of the fuel into the reactor and to simplify the system with a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. at 4-5 (emphasis added). In the Advisory Action dated May 29, 2020, the Examiner finds: Although one of the advantages of eliminating the vaporizer of Liu is prevention of coke build up in the vaporizer, Liu teaches other advantages as well including elimination of the vaporizer resulting in cost, weight, and complexity savings of the system. Thus, regardless of whether the reaction generates coke or not, elimination of the vaporizer still offers advantages. Adv. Act. 2 (emphasis added). In the Answer, the Examiner again states that the rejection is based on two separate motivations: (1) to address the detrimental coke build up in the evaporator and (2) to address the cost, weight and complexity an evaporator adds to the system. Ans. 5. Appellant devotes the entirety of its Brief addressing the merits of the Examiner’s rationale with respect to coke particulate formation. Appeal Br. Appeal 2021-001732 Application 15/878,886 5 6-12. In support of these arguments, Appellant points to the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by Dr. Sean Emerson. Id. at 7-10. That Declaration is similarly solely focused on the Examiner’s rationale regarding coke particulate formation. See Decl. ¶ 20 (“The single motivation proposed by the Examiner to modify Johnson in view of Liu is the motivation to avoid coke particulates from impacting operation of a catalytic reactor.”); id. ¶ 16 (“That is, the suggested motivation (i.e., the formation of coking particles) does not occur in the systems of Johnson and the Application.” (emphases added)). Appellant, however, fails to address the Examiner’s rationale regarding simplifying Johnson’s system by addressing the cost, weight and complexity an evaporator adds to the system. See id.; Final Act. 4-5; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5. Nor has Appellant filed a Reply Brief addressing this specific motivation. Thus, Appellant fails to identify reversible error in this rationale provided by the Examiner as to why the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Johnson and Liu.6 Final Act. 4-5; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5. Thus, we need not and do not address whether Appellant’s arguments and Declaration testimony regarding the Examiner’s “coke formation” rationale would have been otherwise dispositive in this case. On this record, the Examiner finds an undisputed motivation to combine the reference teachings, and the Examiner has pointed to express disclosure in Liu to support that finding. Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 5 (citing Liu ¶¶ 7, 8). We also 6 We do not view Appellant’s quotation of the Examiner’s rejection to be a sufficient challenge of the rationale. Appeal Br. 6. Rather, Appellant merely quotes the rejection without asserting that the Examiner’s “simplification” rationale is erroneous. Id. Appeal 2021-001732 Application 15/878,886 6 observe that the Examiner’s unchallenged rationale has support in well- established case law. See Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common- sensical- . . . there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. (emphasis added)). Having established that the Examiner presents a prima facie case of obviousness, we now address the Declaration to the extent it may apply to the Examiner’s stated motivation of simplifying Johnson’s method. As we note above, the Declaration fails to address the Examiner’s motivation for combining the teachings of the cited art based on addressing the cost, weight and complexity an evaporator adds to the system. See generally Decl.; Ans. 5. In particular, Appellant and Declarant fail to sufficiently explain why one skilled in the art would not have found the use of Liu’s atomizing step suitable for Johnson’s method of supplying inert gas to a fuel tank of an aircraft. In sum, because Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the obviousness rejections, we sustain those rejections for these reasons and those that the Examiner provides. Appeal 2021-001732 Application 15/878,886 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) / Basis Affirmed Reversed 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20 103 Johnson, Liu 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20 17 103 Johnson, Liu, Hamilton 17 18 103 Johnson, Liu, Ribarov 18 Overall Outcome 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED