Ex Parte Olbert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

12675137 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/675, 137 02/25/2010 Gerhard Olbert
22850 7590 07/27/2016
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP,
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
354287USOPCT 2280
EXAMINER
PUTTLITZ, KARL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
ahudgens@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte GERHARD OLBERT, TORSTEN MATTKE,
CARSTEN KNOESCHE, ANDREAS DAISS,
and JENS DENECKE1
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
Technology Center 1600
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, ULRIKE W. JENKS,
and TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to processes
for preparing isocyanates which have been rejected as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to preparing isocyanates through gas-
phase phosgenation - a process of reacting phosgene and amine streams in
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as BASF SE. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
a mixing device. (Spec. 2, 11. 31-37.) Figure 4, reproduced below, is a
cross-sectional view of a mixing device for practicing the claimed processes.
5
2
1 3 . . ..
2
5
(Id. at Fig. 4.) As depicted, 1 and 2 are the amine and phosgene streams
respectively, which flow through nozzles in the direction of the arrows
toward a gap where the reaction takes place. (Id. at 27.) Item 3 is the
reaction mixture. (Id.) Structure 5 is a "Flow Disrupter." (Id.)
According to the Specification:
The flow of the reactants into the mixing chamber is usually
turbulent in the mixing units disclosed. The flow profile has a
turbulent core flow and a wall interface layer. The wall
interface layer consists of a laminar underlayer close to the wall
and a laminar-turbulent transition area. In the interface layer,
especially the laminar underlayer, lower speeds of flow exist
than in the core. At the contact point of the reactant feeds, an
area of low speed and consequently high residence time is thus
formed. There may be formation and deposition of solids there.
(Id. at 2, 11. 17-23.) When a flow disrupter (e.g., structure 5 from Fig. 4
above) is added, however, it "force[ s] a displacement of the flow" through
the nozzle so that "interface layer thickness is reduced compared to the flow
2
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
conditions upst[r]eam of the flow disrupter." (Id. at 3, 11. 25-26, 28-29.) A
reduction in the interface layer, the Specification states, "leads to a reduced
deposition tendency and shorter mixing time." (Id. at 2, 11. 27-29.)
Claims 1-9 and 15-18 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process for preparing an isocyanate by mixing and
reacting in the gas phase the corresponding amine with
phosgene, optionally in the presence of at least one inert
medium, by contacting fluid streams of amine and phosgene
and subsequently reacting them with one another, which
comprises reducing the turbulent flow interface of at least one
stream immediately before it is contacted with the other stream
by means of at least one fluidic flow disruptor.
(Appeal Br. (Claims App'x).)
Claims 1-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
each of Wolfert,2 Herold,3 or Jenne. 4 (Ans. 4.)
DISCUSSION
Issue
The Examiner finds that each of Wolfert, Herold, and Jenne discloses
processes for producing isocyanates in a mixing device like the claims. (Id.
at 5-10.) According to the Examiner, each reference teaches structures that
would disrupt fluidic flow in the amine and/or phosgene streams
immediately before the streams are contacted with one another. (Id.) Based
on the overlap between the prior art devices and processes, and those
2 Wolfert et al. (DE 102005042392, with reference to counterpart US
2009/0221846 Al, published Sept. 3, 2009) ("Wolfert").
3 Herold et al. (US 2005/0113601 Al, published May 26, 2005) ("Herold").
4 Jenne et al. (US 2003/0216597 Al, published Nov. 20, 2003) ("Jenne").
3
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
described in the Specification, the Examiner concludes "those of ordinary
skill in the art would expect that flow would also behave the same." (Ans.
13). Thus, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the Examiner
concludes the prior art devices and processes would reasonably be expected
to "reduc[ e] the turbulent flow interface of at least one stream immediately
before it is contacted with the other stream by means of at least one fluidic
flow disrupter" as provided in the claims. (Id. at 13-14.)
Appellants counter that "none of the elements in the figures in the
applied prior art relied upon by the Examiner have such a function." (Reply
Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 5 ("None of the applied prior art, either
individually as applied, or in combination, discloses or suggests anything
with regard to the above-emphasized feature of Claim 1. ") Appellants do
not contest that at least some of the structures in the prior art would, in fact,
disrupt the flow of the amine or phosgene streams before the streams are
reacted together. But, according to Appellants, the prior art structures
disrupt flow in a different way. (See, e.g., Appeal Br. 7 ("It is not disputed
that such a holder disrupts the flow, but it does so in a different way than the
flow disrupter according to the invention.")
Appellants contend that the "turbulent flow interface" recited in the
claims is a transition area between the turbulent flow in the core of the
tube/nozzle and a laminar layer closer to the walls of the tube. (Id. at 6-7.)
Appellants contend "the flow disrupter according to the present invention is
located along the walls of the tube, therefore, affecting exclusively the flow
nearest the wall but not the flow in the center of the tube." (Id. at 7.) The
prior art structures, Appellants' argument goes, do not (or do not
4
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
sufficiently) disrupt flow near the tube walls, and so do not meet all the
claim elements. (See, e.g., id. at 7 ("Although [Herold's] helical element
mounted in the interior of the tube will reduce the turbulent flow interface, it
will not significantly affect the laminar underlayer near to the wall, since
only a flow disrupter located at the wall will disrupt flow at the wall.").)
All three rejections present similar issues. Has the Examiner
established a prima facie case that the claims would have been obvious over
Wolfert, Herold, or Jenne? And, if so, have Appellants provided persuasive
argument or objective evidence to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case?
Findings of Fact
FF 1. Wolfert teaches "a process for preparing isocyanates and an
apparatus suitable for this purpose." (Wolfert Abstract.) An embodiment of
Wolfert's apparatus is depicted in cross-section below.
•:ittt·•••*'<·
5
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
(Id. at Fig. 2.) Structures 8 and 9 are annular gaps through which phosgene
streams are passed. (Id. iii! 159-160.) Structure 7 is an annular gap through
which the amine stream is passed. (Id.) Structure 10 is the "reaction space"
for the phosgene/amine mixture. (Id.) Wolfert teaches that the "annular
gaps can have any shape" including "preferably rectangular, square, oval,
ellipsoidal or circular." (Id. at iJ 48.) Wolfert also teaches "a very small
transverse diffusion stretch over which the fluid elements are exchanged by
turbulent and laminar diffusion and thus effect mixing is critical for mixing
of the streams." (Id. at iJ 50.) Structure 13 of Fig. 2 is a narrowing of the
feed line:
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the
apparatus can be configured so that the feed lines for the feed
streams, preferably the amine streams, narrow at the transition
to the annular gaps in the direction of the annular gaps ( 13 in
Fig. 2) and the \Valls of the feed lines taper at a half opening
angle, i.e., the angle between the longitudinal axis of the feed
line and the narrowing wall of the feed line, of from >0° up to
and including 70° .... Mixing of the various streams with little
deposition of solids is achieved by means of such narrowing
and angles.
(Id. at iJiJ 183, 185.)
FF 2. Wolfert further teaches
In terms of mixing of the feed streams, an improvement in the
mixing established can be achieved by installation of elements
which generate a tangential velocity [i.e., a circulatory
movement], for example in the feed line for the substreams ....
A suitable tangential-velocity generating element would be, for
example, a spirally twisted ribbon (helix) inserted in the feed
line, round or annular guide plates (guide vanes) or the like.
6
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
The effect ... is to increase the shear between flow layers of
differing composition in the flow in the nozzle.
(Id. at iJ67 .)
FF 3. Herold teaches
A process for preparing isocyanates in the gas phase, in which
the mixing of the reactants and thus the reaction conditions are
significantly improved by means of hydrodynamic measures
such as increasing the turbulence of the feed stream in the
central nozzle. As a consequence, the necessary residence time
in the reactor ... and the formation of polymeric by-products
which lead to caking in the reactor ... is avoided.
(Herold Abstract.) The process of Herold is carried out with an apparatus as
depicted in cross-section below.
Fig, 1
(Id. at Fig. 1.) In this figure, A and B represent the respective amine and
phosgene streams. (Id. at iii! 50, 52.) Central nozzle 5 is held in position by
7
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
holder 4, and turbulence-generating elements 7 are located in the central
nozzle through which the amine stream passes. (Id. at iJ 51.)
FF 4. Herold teaches that turbulence-generating element 7 may be a
round or angular oblique plate or a helical element- each of which
increases the degree of turbulence in the central nozzle. (Id. at Figs. 2A, 2B,
3; iii! 37-39, 52-53; claim 4.) For example, according to Herold, the "task
of the helix is to increase the degree of turbulence in the stream in the central
nozzle and to twist the stream in order to utilize centrifugal effects to aid
mixing of inner and outer streams." (Id. at iJ 39.) In an example, Herold
teaches that the diameter of the helix and the central nozzle are the same.
(Id. iJiJ 55-56.)
FF 5. Jenne teaches a process and tubular reactor for forming
isocyanates. (Jenne Abstract.) According to Jenne, by using "flow-related
measures such as homogenization and centering of the educt streams ...
formation of polymeric secondary products, which result in baked-on
deposits in the reactor and a reduction in reactor service life, is consequently
prevented." (Id.) Figure 1 of Jenne depicts the tubular reactor:
8
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
(Id. at Fig. 1.) A and B are the amine and phosgene streams respectively.
(Id. iii! 32, 34.) Central nozzle 3 includes flexible connecting tube 2, and is
held in position by a plurality of flow homogenizers (7, 8, 9) and a flow
equalizer 12 is included downstream. (Id. iii! 32-33.) Jenne teaches that the
flow homogenizers "homogenize the flow velocity of the educt stream
apportioned into the annular space over the entire cross-section of the
annular space." (Id. at iJ 20.) Structurally, these flow homogenizers may
appear as, for example, "perforated plates, screens, sintered metal, fritted
elements or beds." (Id.) As to structure 2, Jenne teaches "[h]oses and
preferably compensators (corrugated hoses made, for example, of stainless
steel) are suitable." (Id. iJ 22.)
9
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
Analysis
A. Obviousness Over Wolfert
Claim 1
We address claim 1 first and then the dependent claims to the extent
they are separately argued.
Appellants argue, "[ r ]egarding Wolfert et al, the figures therein do not
show any flow disrupters." (App. Br. 8.) Moreover, according to
Appellants, the shapes and annular gaps referenced by the Examiner "refer
to the openings of the annular gaps, through which the stream is fed, but not
to any flow disrupters." (Id.) Appellants also contend that Wolfert
"discloses measures to reduce the turbulence of the stream" such as by
including "rounded, instead of stepwise transition[ s ]" and by "installation of
flow 'equalizers"' and thus the apparatus as disclosed in "does not lead to
flow disruption according to the present invention." (Id. at 9.)
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. To illustrate flow disrupters
in Wolfert, the Examiner cited Figure 2, pointed to various shapes of the
annular openings through which the amine or phosgene streams pass, and
further cited to flow equalizers that may be installed in the feed lines. (Ans.
5-8.) Figure 2 and the related description teach that there is an angular
narrowing of the amine stream at structure 13 just before mixing with the
phosgene stream, which results in "[ m ]ixing the various streams with little
deposition of solids." (FF 1.) Thus, Figure 2 is reasonably interpreted as
showing a constriction along the walls, disrupting the amine flow and
providing a beneficial reduction in solid formation as described in the
Specification. (Spec. 2, 11. 31-37.)
10
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
Moreover, contrary to Appellants' argument that Wolfert seeks to
decrease turbulence, Wolfert teaches that turbulence in the feed streams may
be increased by including tangential-velocity generating elements (such as a
helix or annular plate). (FF 2.) The flow equalizers in Wolfert are optional
(Wolfert ,-i 49) and, regardless, Appellants have not persuasively shown that
such structure does not reduce the turbulent flow interface within the stream.
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, we are not persuaded
that Wolfert fails to disclose a flow disrupter within the scope of claim 1.
And, on this record, we agree with the Examiner that "those of ordinary skill
would expect that the reactant streams of [Wolfert] would behave as
instantly claimed" and that claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious.
(Ans. 9-10.)
Appellants have provided insufficient persuasive evidence to rebut the
Examiner's prima facie case - and, in particular, to respond to the
Examiner's determination that the structures of Wolfert would be expected
to reduce the turbulent flow interface in the manner claimed. In re Best, 562
F.2d 1252, 1254-55, (CCPA 1977) ("[W]here the Patent Office has reason
to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing
novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent
characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the
applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does
not possess the characteristic relied on.") (Citation and quotation marks
omitted). Attorney argument and argument focused on elements not
appearing in the claims do not persuade us here that the claims are
11
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
nonobvious. 5 Without objective, fact-based evidence showing that Wolfert's
mixing apparatus would not provide the function of "reducing the turbulent
flow interface of at least one stream before it is contacted with the other
stream," we agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion that claim 1
would have been obvious.
Claims 8 and 9 were not argued separately and thus fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 2, 3, and 15
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and requires that "the fluidic flow
disrupter consists in a widening of limited length." Claims 3 and 15 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 2 and require that the depth d2 of the
widening relative to the diameter D of the flow channel be a certain ratio
(e.g., the ratio in claim 15 is "0.01to0.3:1"). (Appeal Br. (Claims App'x).)
Appellants contend the prior art does not teach the claimed
"widening" or the particular ratios. (App. Br. 10.) The Examiner has cited
no clear disclosure in Wolfert that would teach or suggest a flow disrupter
that consists in a "widening" as claimed. Nor has the Examiner provided
sufficient reasoning why such a structure, including one with the particular
5 For example, Appellants contend that certain structures in the prior art are
not "at the wall" and that "only a flow disrupter at the wall will disrupt the
flow at the wall." (App. Br. 8.) This contention, however, lacks sufficient
evidentiary support. Moreover, at least as to claim 1, there is no requirement
that the flow disrupter be "at the wall" or that flow "at the wall" be
disrupted. In any event, as discussed above, at least some of the flow-
disrupting structures in Wolfert are "at the wall." (FF 1.)
12
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
ratios as in claims 3 and 15, would have been obvious. We thus reverse as
to claims 2, 3, and 15.
Claims 4, 5, and 16
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and requires that "the fluidic flow
disrupter consists in a "constriction of limited length." Claims 5 and 16
depend directly or indirectly from claim 4 and require that the height d 1 of
the constriction relative to the diameter D of the flow channel be a certain
ratio (e.g., the ratio in claim 16 is "0.05 to 0.18: l "). (Appeal Br. (Claims
App'x).);
Appellants contend the prior art does not teach the claimed
"constriction" or the particular ratios. (App. Br. 10-11.) We disagree with
Appellants concerning claim 4. Figure 2 of Wolfert, including the
accompanying description of the figure, shows a narrowing of the amine
stream, which is a constriction of limited length. (FF 1.) We agree with
Appellants, however, concerning claims 5 and 16. The Examiner has not
pointed us to a sufficient teaching or suggestion in Wolfert, or provided any
rationale sufficient to sustain the rejection of the claims reciting particular
ratios of the constriction. We thus affirm the rejection of claim 4, but
reverse as to claims 5 and 16.
Claims 6 and 18
According to Appellants, the cited references do not disclose the
shapes of the fluidic flow disrupter required in claim 6 (e.g., rectangles,
semicircles, triangles, etc.) or claim 18 (rectangle). (App. Br. 11.) This
argument is not persuasive. The Examiner has cited Fig. 2 of Wolfert and
teachings that the annular gaps through which the streams flow may be any
13
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
shape (e.g., rectangular). (Ans. 6; FF 1.) We find these disclosures
sufficient to show a flow disrupter having a shape within the scope of the
claims. We thus affirm the rejection of claims 6 and 18.
Claims 7 and 17
According to Appellants, Wolfert does not disclose a fluidic flow
disrupter that encloses an angle (phi) with the flow direction, where
may be from 0 to 80° (as in claim 7) or 0° (as in claim 17). (App. Br. 11;
see Spec. Fig. 7.) As to claim 7, this argument is unpersuasive. Wolfert
discloses a narrowing in the wall of the feed line that defines an angle of
from >0° up to an including 70° with the longitudinal axis (i.e., flow
direction). (FF. 1.) The Examiner has not, however, cited to any disclosure
in Wolfert showing a flow disrupter that encloses an angle of 0° with the
flow direction, nor provided any rationale for why the skilled person would
predictably modify Wolfert further. We thus affirm the rejection of claim 7,
but reverse the rejection of claim 17.
B. Obviousness Over Herold
Claim 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 15-18 over Herold. According
to the Examiner, holder 4 and/or turbulence generator 7 satisfy the claimed
"fluidic flow disrupter" element. (Ans. 8, 10-11.) And, like discussed
above, the Examiner concludes that the skilled artisan would expect the
reactant streams of Herold to behave as instantly claimed (i.e., reduce the
turbulent flow interface). (Ans. 9-10.)
Appellants argue that holder 4 of Herold "disrupts the flow in the
center of the tube as well as at the wall ... [but] the wall interface layer is
14
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
not disrupted, since that layer simply flows around connections of the holder
to the wall and flows together behind this obstacle." (App. Br. 7.)
Regarding turbulence generator 7, Appellants argue "[a]though the helical
element mounted in the interior of the tube will reduce the turbulent flow
interface, it will not significantly affect the laminar underlayer near to the
wall, since only a flow disrupter located at the wall will disrupt flow at the
wall." (Id. at 8.)
The Examiner has the better position. First, Appellants provide
insufficient fact-based evidence to support their contentions about how flow
would behave differently in the Herold apparatus and process from what is
claimed. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1254-55. Second, because the helical
element of Herold may be "at the wall," Appellants' argument that it would
not disrupt the flow there is not supported. In an example, Herold teaches
that the diameter of the helix and the central nozzle are the same. (FF 4.)
Third, Appellants admit that the helix of Herold "will reduce the turbulent
flow interface." (App. Br. 8.) That is what claim 1 requires - that it
"significantly affect[ s] the laminar underlayer near to the wall" is not a
requirement. (Id.)
For these reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 over Herold.
Claims 8 and 9 were not argued separately and thus fall with claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, and 15
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 10), that the Examiner has cited
no clear disclosure in Herold that would teach or suggest a flow disrupter
that consists in a "widening" as in claim 2. Nor has the Examiner provided
sufficient reasoning why such a structure, including one with the particular
15
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
ratios as in claims 3 and 15, would have been obvious. We thus reverse as
to claims 2, 3, and 15.
Claims 4, 5, and 16
Contrary to Appellants' argument, at least the turbulence-generating
element 7 of Herold can be reasonably interpreted as a "constriction" as
provided in claim 4. (FF 3--4.) We agree, however, with Appellants
concerning claims 5 and 16. The Examiner has not pointed us to a sufficient
teaching or suggestion in Herold, or provided any rationale sufficient to
sustain the rejection of the claims reciting particular ratios of the
constriction. We thus affirm the rejection of claim 4, but reverse as to
claims 5 and 16.
Claims 6 and 18
Contrary to Appellants' argument, Herold discloses a fluidic flow
disrupter having the shapes recited in claims 6 and 18. (App. Br. 11.) For
example, the turbulence-generating element is an oblique plate that, in cross-
sectional view, is a rectangle. (FF 4.) We thus sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 6 and 18 over Herold.
Claims 7 and 17
Herold discloses a turbulence-generating element 7, which may be a
helix or round or angular oblique plate. (FF 4.) The turbulence-generating
element is disposed at an angle that appears greater than 0° and less than 90°
(e.g., Herold, Figs. 2A, 2B, 3), and we conclude that an angle within the
scope of claim 7 would have been obvious in light of Herold's descriptions
of the turbulence generating element 7. However, the Examiner has not
cited to any disclosure in Herold that shows a flow disrupter that encloses an
16
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
angle of 0°, nor provided any rationale for why the skilled person would
predictably modify Herold to include such an angle. We thus affirm the
rejection of claim 7, but reverse the rejection of claim 17.
C. Obviousness Over Jenne
Claim 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 15-18 over Jenne. According
to the Examiner, flexible connecting tube 2 and flow equalizer 12 are flow
disrupters as in claim 1. (Ans. 8-9, 11.) Here again, the Examiner
concludes that the skilled artisan would expect the reactant streams of Jenne
to behave as instantly claimed (i.e., reduce the turbulent flow interface), and
invites Appellants to provide evidence to the contrary. (Ans. 9-10, 13-14.)
Appellants argue that "the flow equalizers [e.g., honeycomb and
tubular structures] according to Jenne et al act exactly opposite to the flow
disrupter according to the present invention." (App. Br. 9.) Appellants
argue that because such equalizers orient the flow axially, they would not
reduce the turbulent flow interface. (Id.) Appellants do not respond
concerning the effect the flexible connecting tube 2 (e.g., corrugated
stainless steel hose) would have on the amine stream flowing through the
central nozzle.
For reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to the
rejections over Wolfert and Herold, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive.
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
to support the conclusion that the skilled person would reasonably expect the
structures of Jenne to disrupt the turbulent flow interface, and Appellants
have provided insufficient, fact-based evidence to show otherwise.
17
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
We thus affirm the rejection of claim 1 over Jenne. Claims 8 and 9
were not argued separately and thus fall with claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, and 15
The Examiner has cited the flexible connecting hose 2 (Fig. 1) in
Jenne as satisfying the claimed "widening" as in claim 2. (Ans. 10-11.) We
agree this shows a widening of limited length in the central nozzle. (FF 5.)
Appellants have not persuasively shown that the Examiner's findings are
incorrect. We thus affirm the rejection of claim 2 over Jenne. With respect
to claims 3 and 15, however, the Examiner provided insufficient explanation
to show why the particular ratios in those claims would have been obvious
over Jenne. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 15.
Claims 4, 5, and 16
Contrary to Appellants' argument, the flow equalizers (as well as the
flow homogenizers) of Jenne can be reasonably interpreted as a
"constriction" as provided in claim 4. (Ans. 10-11; FF 6.) We agree with
Appellants, however, concerning claims 5 and 16. The Examiner has not
pointed us to a sufficient teaching or suggestion in Jenne, or provided any
rationale sufficient to sustain the rejection of the claims reciting particular
ratios of the constriction. We thus affirm the rejection of claim 4, but
reverse as to claims 5 and 16.
Claims 6 and 18
Contrary to Appellants' argument, Jenne discloses a fluidic flow
disrupter having at least one of the shapes recited in claim 6. (App. Br. 11.)
The corrugations shown in flexible connecting tube 2 are semi-circular in
cross-section. (FF 6; Jenne Fig. 1.) Jenne does not, however, appear to
18
Appeal2014-000496
Application 12/675,137
show any rectangular flow disrupter as recited in claim 18. We thus affirm
the rejection of claim 6, but reverse the rejection of claim 18.
Claims 7 and 17
The Examiner has not sufficiently explained why the angles recited in
claims 7 and 17 would have been obvious over Jenne, and it is not plainly
evident based on the record concerning Jenne that is before us. We thus
reverse the rejections of claims 7 and 17.
SUMMARY
For the rejections under§ 103(a) over Wolfert: we affirm as to claims
1, 4, 6-9, and 18; we reverse as to claims 2, 3, 5, and 15-17.
For the rejections under§ 103(a) over Herold: we affirm as to claims
1, 4, 6-9, and 18; we reverse as to claims 2, 3, 5, and 15-17.
For the rejections under§ 103(a) over Jenne: we affirm as to claims 1,
2, 4, 6, 8, 9; we reverse as to claims 3, 5, 7, and 15-18.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
19