Ex Parte Strybos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2018

14753778 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/753,778 06/29/2015 Ronald STRYBOS
40582 7590 05/01/2018
American Air Liquide, Inc.
Intellectual Property Department
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
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.
Sl0095 CNT 50ll
EXAMINER
AKRAM, IMRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2018 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):
IP-USOffice@airliquide.com
Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com
J us tin.Murray@airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD STRYBOS
Appeal2017-007378
Application 14/753,778
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
February 26, 2016 decision rejecting claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Air Liquide Large Industries
U.S. LP (Br. 3).
Appeal2017-007378
Application 14/753,778
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention is directed to a detonation arrester for use in a
pipeline, which is upstream or downstream of a large volume of hydrogen
(Spec. 1 :22-24). Large volumes of flammable gases, such as hydrogen, are
typically stored in leached caverns in salt formations (id. at 1:11-12).
Locating a detonation arrestor at the pipeline wellhead is said to break up
any flame front or deflagration, so that the flame, deflagration, or explosion
does not enter the cavern (id. at 1: 14--16).
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief (emphasis added):
1. A hydrogen pipeline detonation arrestor comprising;
• a pipeline spool, comprising a segment length, an inner
volume, an outer surface,
• a detonation barrier comprising plurality of axially
aligned quench pipes located within the inner volume,
wherein the detonation arrester is located within a hydrogen
pipeline upstream or downstream of a salt cavern storage
facility, and
wherein the plurality of quench pipes are axially alighted with
the pipeline spool.
Br. 11 (Claims App.).
DISCUSSION
The only rejection on appeal is the rejection of claims 1-8 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Rajewski2 in view ofOates. 3
Appellant does not offer separate arguments in support of any of the
2 Rajewski, US 5,336,083, issued Aug. 9, 1994.
3 Oates, US 2013/0315669 Al, published Nov. 28, 2013.
2
Appeal2017-007378
Application 14/753,778
dependent claims; arguments are directed to limitations recited in
independent claim 1 (see generally Br. 5-9). Accordingly, our discussion
will focus on the rejection of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to show that Rajewski,
either alone or in combination with Oates, discloses or suggests each and
every limitation of claim 1 (id. at 5). In particular, Appellant argues that
Rajewski's backing bars 42 fail to render obvious the claimed axially
aligned quench pipes (id. at 5-9).
However, this argument is moot because the Examiner no longer takes
the position that Rajewski's backing bars 42 disclose or suggest the requisite
axially aligned quench pipes (see Non-Final Act. 2; Ans. 4). Rather, the
Examiner finds that Rajewski "discloses axially aligned pathways that
transmit quenching fluid in the flow direction of the device" (Non-Final Act.
2, citing Rajewski 9:6-10:23). In particular, the Examiner finds that
Rajewski's "plates and passages ... sufficiently disclose the claimed
'axially aligned quench pipes"' (Ans. 3, citing Rajewski 9:58---67).
It is well established that a reference is good for all it fairly teaches a
person having ordinary skill in the art, even when the teaching is a cursory
mention. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972).
In this instance, there is no dispute that the plain meaning of the term
"pipe[]" would require that each pipe within the claimed plurality of axially
aligned quench pipes must be "impermeable, and what enters into one end
exits at the other" (Br. 8; see also Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 3, 5).
As the Examiner finds, Rajewski specifically teaches embodiments of
a quenching system, which includes passages that flow axially (Ans. 5). We
note Rajewski discloses
3
Appeal2017-007378
Application 14/753,778
quenching means formed by using [ steel] plates 154 ( either
helically stacked or plane parallel stacked) that are extended in
length as well as the channels between them so as to be
sufficiently long that flame fronts passing through the channels
are quenched.
(Rajewski 9:61---66 (emphasis added); see also id. at 10:4). In particular,
Rajewski teaches that steel "plates 152 may extend 15" or more in the
direction of flow through the housing" (id. at 9:66---67; 10:4). We agree with
the Examiner that these disclosures would have suggested to the ordinary
skilled artisan that Rajewski's channels extend widthwise across the cell
housing, thereby forming an impermeable pipe-like long flat passage, which
is open at each housing end.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner's position without providing
any reason why plates and passages, which transmit quenching fluid in the
flow direction of the device, would not sufficiently disclose or suggest the
limitation at issue (see generally Br. 5-9). Absent factual evidence showing
otherwise, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner's determination
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that
channels formed between plates suggests the claimed axially aligned quench
pipes.
Therefore, on this record, the preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner's determination of obviousness. Dependent claims 2-7 fall
with independent claim 1. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rajewski in view of Oates.
4
Appeal2017-007378
Application 14/753,778
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5