Ex Parte Thorwid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2018

13254297 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/254,297 11/04/2011
140282 7590
Murtha Cullina LLP
One Century Tower
265 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
12/31/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Thorwid
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.
6485-0094WOUS 8031
EXAMINER
HOWELL, MARC C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1774
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2018 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):
ipdocketing@murthalaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER THORWID, ROLAND ISAKSSON, PETER HAGQVIST,
CARL HAGGMARK, and LARS HILLSTROM
Appeal2017-002896
Application 13/254,297
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 21--40. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify ALF A LAV AL CORPORA TE AB as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed January 20, 2016 ("App. Br."), 2.
2 We heard oral arguments from Appellants' representative on December 10,
2018.
Appeal2017-002896
Application 13/254,297
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim a centrifugal separator and a method for operating a
centrifugal separator. Independent claims 21 and 3 8 illustrate the subject
matter on appeal and are reproduced below with contested language
italicized:
21. A centrifugal separator comprising
a casing which delimits a space which is sealed relative
to the surroundings of the casing and in which a rotor is
arranged for rotation,
which rotor forms within itself a separation space, and in
which separation space centrifugal separation of at least one
higher density component and at least one lower density
component from a fluid takes place during operation,
into which rotor at least one inlet extends for introducing
said fluid to the separation space, and from which rotor at least
one first outlet extends for discharge of at least one component
separated from the fluid during operation,
where a pump device is in fluid communication with all
of said space, the pump device being arranged to remove gas
from the space during operation, thereby maintaining negative
pressure in said space, and
wherein the rotor comprises at least one second outlet
extending from a portion of the separation space to the space
for discharge of at least one higher density component
separated from the fluid during operation;
the at least one second outlet being configured to at least
partially seal the separation space from the space or selectively
isolate the separation space from the space; and
a discharge device in the form of a sludge pump being
arranged to remove the at least one higher density component
separated from the fluid from the space during operation.
38. A method for operating a centrifugal separator, the
method comprising:
providing a centrifugal separator comprising
2
Appeal2017-002896
Application 13/254,297
a casing which delimits a space which is sealed
relative to the surroundings of the casing and in which a
rotor is arranged for rotation,
said rotor forming within itself a separation space,
at least one inlet extending into said rotor, and
at least one first outlet extending from said rotor,
a pump device is in fluid communication with all of
said space,
the rotor comprises at least one second outlet
extending from a portion of the separation space to the
space, the at least one second outlet being configured to
at least partially seal the separation space from the space
or selectively isolate the separation space from the space;
removing gas from the space round the rotor, thereby
maintaining negative pressure in said space;
discharging from a portion of the separation space to the
space via said second outlet at least one higher density
component separated from the fluid during operation; and
removing the at least one higher density component
separated from the fluid from the space during separation via a
discharge device in the form of a sludge pump.
App. Br. 21, 23 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis and indentations
added).
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Non-Final
Office Action entered August 27, 2015 ("Office Act."), and maintains the
rejections in the Examiner's Answer entered October 24, 2016 ("Ans."):
I. Claims 21-32 and 34--40 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Scholz3 in view ofFryar4, Wenger5, and Wendt6; and
3 Scholz et al., US 2005/0006319 Al, published January 13, 2005.
4 Fryar, US 3,928,003, issued December 23, 1975.
5 Wenger, US 3,239,137, issued March 8, 1966.
6 Wendt, US 3,001,293, issued September 26, 1961.
3
Appeal2017-002896
Application 13/254,297
II. Claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Scholz
in view of Fryar, Wenger, Wendt, and Niinai7.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellants' contentions, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 21--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the
Appeal Brief and below.
Independent claim 21 recites, in part, a centrifugal separator
comprising a casing that delimits a space in which a rotor is arranged, and a
pump device in fluid communication with the space and arranged to remove
gas from the space during operation, thereby maintaining negative pressure
in the space. Similarly, independent claim 38 recites, in part, a method
comprising providing a centrifugal separator comprising a casing that
delimits a space in which a rotor is arranged, providing a pump device in
fluid communication with the space, and removing gas from the space
around the rotor, thereby maintaining negative pressure in the space.
The Examiner finds that Scholz discloses a centrifugal separator
comprising a casing that delimits a space in which a rotor is arranged, and an
opening in fluid communication with the space from which gas is removed
via exhaust gas pipe 11. Office Act. 3--4 ( citing Scholz Fig. 1 ). The
Examiner finds that Scholz does not disclose a pump device connected to the
opening that removes gas from the space during operation of the centrifugal
separator, and the Examiner relies on Fryar to address these features missing
from Scholz's disclosures. Office Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Fryar
7 Niinai, US 2005/0272587, published December 8, 2005.
4
Appeal2017-002896
Application 13/254,297
discloses "a centrifuge contained within a housing [] which is connected to a
source of vacuum to maintain a low pressure within the housing." Office
Act. 4 ( citing Fryar Fig. 2; col. 1, 11. 64---68). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellants' invention "to connect the vacuum pump of Fryar to the gas pipe
of Scholz for the purpose of avoiding retrapping of air in the centrifuged
mixture." Office Act. 4 (citing Fryar col. 2, 11. 1-3).
A preponderance of the evidence relied upon in this appeal does not
support the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness for reasons expressed by
Appellants and discussed below.
Scholz discloses a method and centrifuge for separating blood plasma
particles from the liquid phase of a blood plasma suspension. ,r,r 1, 8.
Scholz discloses that the centrifuge comprises rotating drum 4 contained
within housing 1, and admission line 2 for feeding a blood plasma
suspension into the lower area of drum 4. ,r,r 34--36 Fig. 1. Scholz discloses
that space 10 surrounds drum 4, and discloses cooling space 10 while drum
4 rotates by feeding liquid nitrogen through attachment 16 in housing 1.
,r,r 27, 43. Scholz discloses removing nitrogen gas from space 10 through
exhaust gas pipe 11. Id. Scholz discloses that the method of Scholz's
invention "permits cooling of the drum without the need for a vacuum in the
area of rotation of the drum." ,r 7.
Fryar discloses a centrifugal vacuum deaerator for deaerating viscous
liquids such as toothpaste. Col. 1, 11. 7-9. Fryar discloses that the deaerator
comprises enclosed chamber 11 containing rotor assembly 13 that includes
flange 17 and bowl 15, which receives material to be deaerated through inlet
12. Col. 1, 11. 61---64; col. 2, 11. 6-10, 17; Fig. 2. Fryar discloses that bowl
5
Appeal2017-002896
Application 13/254,297
15 contains a series of small holes 16, and explains that when bowl 15 is
rotated by a power means, material to be deaerated is accelerated through
holes 16 by centrifugal force and impinges on flange 17, which "gets rid of
the largest bubbles." Col. 2, 11. 10-14, 17-21, 39-43; Fig 2. Fryar discloses
that chamber 11 is connected to a source of vacuum to create and maintain a
vacuum inside chamber 11 for the purpose of preventing "retrapping" of air
in the deaerated material. Col. 1, 1. 64---col. 2, 1. 3.
As Appellants correctly argue (Reply Br. 10-11), Scholz's centrifugal
separator, unlike Fryar's centrifuge, is not used to deaerate viscous liquids,
but, as discussed above, is used to separate blood plasma particles from the
liquid phase of a blood plasma suspension. Accordingly, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that "retrapping" air in a liquid phase
separated from particles in a plasma suspension is of no concern during
operation of Scholz's centrifuge. Therefore, contrary to the Examiner's
assertion, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have sought to avoid
"retrapping of air in the centrifuged mixture" of Scholz by connecting a
vacuum pump as disclosed in Fryar to Scholz's gas pipe 11.
Appellants also argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have had reason to modify Scholz's centrifugal separator to include a
vacuum source as disclosed in Fryar because Scholz explicitly discloses that
Scholz's method permits cooling of the drum without the need for a vacuum
in the area of rotation of the drum. App. Br. 12-15.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds that
"addition of a vacuum pump [ to Scholz' s centrifugal separator] would
simply allow for the removal of unwanted gas from within the centrifuge
chamber, which is the purpose of the exhaust gas pipe 11 of Scholz." Ans.
6
Appeal2017-002896
Application 13/254,297
10. However, the Examiner does not address Scholz's disclosure that
exhaust gas pipe 11-in the absence of a vacuum pump----functions to
remove gas from space 10 surrounding drum 4. Nor does the Examiner
address Scholz's explicit disclosure that the drum described in the reference
can be cooled "without the need for a vacuum in the area of rotation of the
drum." The Examiner does not provide a credible explanation for why,
despite these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art nonetheless would
have had a reason to connect a vacuum pump as disclosed in Fryar to gas
pipe 11 of Scholz's centrifugal separator. Belden v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d
1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled
artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make
the combinations or modifications of the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention."); KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (It is
well settled that "a patent composed of several elements is not proved
obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art.").
Accordingly, on this appeal record, the Examiner does not provide a
persuasive, reasoned explanation, supported by objective evidence, for why
a combination of the relied-upon disclosures of Scholz and Fryar would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to a centrifugal separator comprising a
casing that delimits a space in which a rotor is arranged, and a pump device
in fluid communication with the space that removes gas from the space
during operation, to maintain negative pressure in the space, as required by
claims 21 and 3 8.
7
Appeal2017-002896
Application 13/254,297
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 21 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and also of claims
22-37, 39, and 40, which each depend from either claim 21 or claim 38.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 21--40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
8