Ex Parte Saito et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

10579327 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/579,327 0310512007
7663 7590 06/25/2018
STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER
75 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 250
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shinichiro Saito
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.
NAKAI-008US 6568
EXAMINER
MURPHY, KEVIN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINICHIRO SAITO and T AKAHIKO SUZUKI
Appeal2016-003388
Application 10/579,327
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9-14 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niwa2 (JP H9-301751 A, publ.
Nov. 25, 1997) and Hansen (US 2002/0086258 Al, publ. July 4, 2002); and
claims 4, 13 and 15 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niwa, Hansen
The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Taiheiyo Cement
Corporation. (See "Appeal Brief under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37," dated July 22,
2015, at 3).
2 Niwa was referred to by its assignee's name, UBE Industries, during
prosecution before the Examiner.
Appeal2016-003388
Application 10/579,327
and Murata (US 6,017,213, issued Jan. 25, 2000). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
The appealed claims are directed to a system for addressing the
problem of chlorides solidifying a cement kiln gas stream to form a coating
on the walls of the kiln. (See generally Spec., paras. 22-30 (as corrected,
June 4, 2013) & Figs. 1 & 2). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on
appeal:
1. A combustion gas extraction probe for extracting a
high-temperature combustion gas while cooling said high-
temperature combustion gas with a low-temperature gas
characterized by:
an outer tube; and
a metal inner tube positioned within the outer tube
to define a cooling fluid passage therebetween, the metal
inner tube being of unitary construction and having an
inner diameter defining a flow path area substantially
along the entire tube and through which extracted high-
temperature combustion gas flows, the metal inner tube
configured to emit low-temperature gas into the flow path
area only in a single transverse plane generally
perpendicular to a sucking direction of the high-
temperature combustion gas, the inner tube having a
plurality oflow-temperature discharge holes in direct fluid
communication with the cooling fluid passage and the
flow path area and spaced from a sucking end of the inner
tube and disposed about respective axes aligned within a
single plane for emitting said low-temperature gas so as to
flow in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the
sucking direction of the high-temperature combustion gas
and is toward a center of a flow of said high-temperature
combustion gas such that said low-temperature gas
reaches the centermost portion of said high-temperature
combustion gas to create a single transverse sheet of low-
2
Appeal2016-003388
Application 10/579,327
temperature gas for mixed cooling and that all vector
components of said low-temperature gas emitted into the
high temperature gas and parallel to the flow direction of
said high-temperature gas are in a downstream direction
of the high-temperature combustion gas; and
a plurality of collars coupled to the inner tube and
disposed about respective ones of the plurality of low-
temperature discharge holes, each collar being disposed
about a respective axis which is perpendicular to the
sucking direction of the high-temperature combustion gas;
the inner tube being independent of a discharge hole
disposed about an axis spaced from the single plane and
arranged perpendicular to the inner tube.
Niwa describes a gas extraction pipe for a cement kiln. (See Niwa,
para. 13). In one embodiment, as depicted in Figure 4, an inner tube 1
defines a flow path area through which extracted high-temperature
combustion gas flows. The annular space 3 between the inner and outer
tubes 1, 2 defines a cooling fluid passage into which cooling air is sent.
Cooling fluid enters the flow path area from an annular space surrounding
the inner tube 1 through two or more small-diameter holes near the mouth 8
of the inner tube. The injection of the cooling air into the inner tube 1 mixes
the high-temperature combustion gas flow with the cooling air so as to cool
the gas flow. (See Niwa, para. 17 & Fig. 4). Niwa teaches that the injection
of the cooling air near the mouth 8 of the inner tube 1 prevents the growth of
deposits (that is, coatings) by generating a curtain of air near the entryway
into the gas extraction pipe. (See id.)
Hansen describes a method for improving energy efficiency, and
reducing NOx emissions, from a cement kiln by promoting the oxidation of
uncombusted gases in the kiln gas stream. (See Hansen, paras. 9 & 39). The
method includes the steps of injecting air into the kiln gas stream through air
3
Appeal2016-003388
Application 10/579,327
injection tubes 32 located along the lower one-half length of the kiln. (See
Hansen, paras. 9, 38 & 40). As depicted in Figures 2-7, each air injection
tube 32 includes a straight, cylindrical portion extending perpendicularly
through the cylindrical wall 14 of the rotary vessel 12. The air injection
tubes 32 terminate at their radially inner ends in nozzles 36 that redirect the
air flow in a direction transverse to the radial direction defined by the
cylindrical wall 14. (See Hansen, para. 40).
The Examiner finds that Niwa teaches each limitation of claim 1
except "a plurality of collars coupled to the inner tube and disposed about
respective ones of the plurality of low-temperature discharge holes, each
collar being disposed about a respective axis which is perpendicular to the
sucking direction of the high-temperature combustion gas." (Final Act. 3-
5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify the device of [Niwa] such that a plurality of collars are
coupled to the inner tube and disposed about respective low-
temperature discharge holes perpendicular to the sucking
direction of the high-temperature combustion gas as taught by
Hansen for the purpose of directing the injected air toward the
center of the inner tube, thereby improving the mixing of the
injected air with the main flow.
(Final Act. 6).
The Appellants argue that the proposed modification ofNiwa's
system in view of the teachings of Hansen would have rendered Niwa' s
system inoperable for its intended purpose. Br. 13. We are not persuaded
that the proposed modification would have rendered Niwa's system
incapable of drawing off a bypass flow and solidifying chloride particles
from the bypass flow. Nevertheless, the Appellants' argument highlights
another problem with the Examiner's rejection. The proposed modification
4
Appeal2016-003388
Application 10/579,327
would have changed the pattern of cooling air flow into the bypass probe,
from a substantially radial flow tending to generate a curtain of air near the
entryway into the gas extraction pipe (see Niwa, para. 17 & Fig. 4) to a
swirling flow (see Hansen, paras. 38--40). In order to demonstrate that such
a change would have been obvious, the Examiner at least had to suggest
some apparent reason for making this change.
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art might have
made this change "for the purpose of directing the injected air toward the
center of the inner tube." (Final Act. 6). Disposing, about each ofNiwa's
small-diameter holes, an air injection tube such as the tubes 32 proposed by
Hansen, including a nozzle 3 6 for diverting the cooling air flow from a
radial pattern into a swirling pattern, would have had the opposite result.
Therefore, the Examiner's reasoning is not persuasive. We do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9-14 under§ 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Niwa and Hansen.
With respect to the remaining claims, Figures 4--6 of Murata depict a
bypass probe 5 including inner and outer tubes 10, 12 defining an annular
fluid flowing path 17. The inner tube 10 is punctured by holes 28, depicted
in Figures 4--6 as arranged to inject cooling air CA from the annular fluid
flowing path 17 into an extracted exhaust gas flow GT through the inner tube
10. (See Murata, col. 3, 11. 26-30 & 55-57; col. 4, 11. 8-10; & col. 5, 11. 16-
19 & 33--41 ). More specifically, Figures 4--6 depict the cooling air CA
entering the inner tube 10 through the holes 28 as entering in a direction
transverse to, if not perpendicular to, the direction of the exhaust gas flow
GT. Murata teaches that the cooling air CA mixes with, and cools, the
5
Appeal2016-003388
Application 10/579,327
exhaust gas flow GT in a front end portion 20 of the inner tube. (Murata,
col. 5, 11. 33--41 ).
Murata does not appear to describe collars disposed about the holes
28. Therefore, Murata's teachings do not remedy the deficiencies in the
Examiner's rejection of parent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 13 and 15 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niwa, Hansen
and Murata.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7,
and 9-15.
REVERSED
6