GARDNER DENVER NASH LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2021002127 (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. 14/991,082 01/08/2016 Ramesh Balunge Shenoi 5020.0007C 8379 174863 7590 03/22/2022 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC 9801 Washingtonian Blvd. Suite 750 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 EXAMINER FINK, THOMAS ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 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): epatent@usiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAMESH BALKUNGE SHENOI Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Gardner Denver Nash LLC. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 1-6 and 21 are withdrawn from consideration. See Final Act. 1. Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure relates to compressor type liquid ring pumps having a sealing liquid introduction path. Spec. ¶ 1. According to Appellant, “[t]hese pumps include a sealing liquid flow path along which sealing liquid flows into the head and working chamber of the pump. The sealing liquid, in part, seals interstices to prevent leakage of gas through the interstices.” Id. ¶ 4. Claims 7 and 15 are independent. Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 7. A compressor type liquid ring pump comprising: a housing defining an interior working space sized to receive a quantity of gas and a quantity of sealing liquid; a pump head coupled to the housing and defining an inlet channel, an outlet space, and a cone seal area; an intake valve movable between an opened position and a closed position to control the quantity of a gas entering the inlet channel; a reservoir containing a quantity of sealing liquid; a first flow member including a first valve coupled to the reservoir and the inlet channel to provide fluid communication therebetween; a second flow member including a second valve coupled to the reservoir and the cone seal area to provide fluid communication therebetween; and a rotor supported for rotation by a shaft, the rotor disposed at least partially within the working space and operable to draw in the gas from the inlet channel at an inlet pressure and to discharge the gas to the outlet space at an outlet pressure that is higher than the inlet pressure, wherein during a start-up mode of the liquid ring pump the intake valve is moved toward the closed position, the first valve is opened, and the second valve is closed, and wherein during a running mode of the liquid ring pump following the start-up mode, the intake valve is moved toward Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 3 the open position, the first valve is closed, and the second valve is opened. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Adams ’375 US 2,195,375 Mar. 26, 1940 Adams ’061 US 3,366,061 Jan. 30, 1968 Adams ’918 US 3,289,918 Dec. 6, 1966 Siemens DE 6893453 Feb. 29, 1940 Dekker Vacuum Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter “Dekker”) Dekker Vacuum Technologies, Inc., Oil-sealed liquid ring vacuum pump systems June 2006 Thomas R. Dardis Liquid Ring Technology Increases Production in Low- Pressure Natural Gas, Upstream Pumping Nov. 4, 2014 REJECTIONS I. Claims 7, 8, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Adams ’375, Adams ’061, and Dekker. II. Claims 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Adams ’375, Adams ’061, Dekker, and Adams ’918. III. Claims 7, 8, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable Siemens, Dardis, Adams ’061, and Dekker. IV. Claims 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Siemens, Dardis, Adams ’061, Dekker, and Adams ’918. 3 Our citations refer to the English-language machine translation that is provided in the image file wrapper. Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 4 OPINION Rejection I; Adams ’375, Adams ’061, and Dekker The Examiner finds that Adams ’375 discloses many of the limitations of the liquid ring pump of claim 7, including first and second flow members, but does not disclose that the first flow member has a first valve and is connected to a reservoir. Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner finds, however, that Adams ’061 discloses a first flow member having a first valve and connected to a reservoir. Id. at 4. The Examiner considers that it would have been obvious to connect first flow member 57 of Adams ’375 to a reservoir and include a valve, to supply and control recycled liquid to the liquid ring pump inlet in order to reduce the amount of liquid waste by recycling the liquid. Id. According to the Examiner, the claimed operating positions of the first and second valves is an intended use of the valves, and that Adams ’375 as modified by Adams ’061 is capable of performing the claimed intended use. Id. at 5. Appellant asserts that the limitations recited in the two “wherein” clauses at the end of claim 7 are not merely intended use of the liquid ring pump, and, instead, “the relative positions of the valves, and which valve is tied to different modes of the pump, are significant to the structure of the claimed pump.” Appeal Br. 7-9. We address Appellant’s argument on this point in our discussion of Rejection III below. Appellant also asserts that the Examiner’s proposed modification is contrary to how Adams ’375 operates. Appeal Br. 10. In particular, Appellant asserts that Adams flows fluid through tap 57 at the same time that fluid flows through tap 61 in order to have sufficient flow to remove Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 5 heat and seal the clearances. Id. (citing Adams ’375, p. 3, col. 2, l. 45-p. 4, col. 1, l. 34). According to Appellant, closing a valve connected to tap 57 would not enable the pump of Adams ’375 to operate as intended, because “the heat from operating the pump would not be removed.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 10. The Examiner responds that the intended use limitations of claim 7 “merely requires the prior art pump to be structurally capable of being operated with the claimed valves in certain positions during start-up, and certain positions when the pump is running.” Ans. 28. According to the Examiner, the pump of Adams ’375 as modified “is structurally capable of operating (running) with the valve in tap 57 closed.” Id. at 31. Appellant has the better position. “If when combined, the references ‘would produce a seemingly inoperative device,’ then they teach away from their combination.” Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan, Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 587, 160 USPQ 237, 244 (CCPA 1969)). In the Figure 4 embodiment of Adams ’375 upon which the Examiner relies, Adams ’375 discloses, “the liquid required for the removal of heat of compression is delivered through the tap 57.” Adams ’375, p. 4, col. 1, ll. 3-13. The Examiner’s proposed modification, however, requires that there is no liquid entering tap 57, because “the first valve is closed,” and the Examiner does not explain sufficiently how the heat of compression is removed. The Examiner’s assertion that “there would be no need to provide the additional ‘small amount’ [of] liquid via tap 57,” is not supported by the disclosure of Adams ’375. In particular, in each embodiment of Adams ’375, “liquid as is required for removing the heat of compression is delivered through the Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 6 supply tap 44” (Adams ’375, Figs. 2, 3), or is delivered through tap 57 (Adams ’375, Figs. 1, 4). Although we appreciate that Adams ’375 discloses that the pump can handle a “combination of gas and liquid” (see Ans. 30 (citing Adams, p.1, col. 1, ll. 25-28)), this same passage of Adams also discloses “handling of air and gas.” Without a source of liquid, the Examiner’s assertion that a “small amount” of liquid would already be present is based on speculation. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Adams ’375 is “structurally capable of operating (running) with the valve in tap 57 closed,” is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7, and claims 8 and 11-14 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Adams ’375, Adams ’061, and Dekker. Independent claim 15 similarly recites that the pump is operable “during a running mode to draw sealing liquid into the working space via only the second flow member.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The Examiner considers that claim 15 functions “by the valves being operated in the manner claimed in claim 7,” and relies on the same findings and reasoning as in claim 7. See Final Act. 7-9; see also Ans. 25. For the same reasons as for claim 7, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 15 and claims 17-19 depending therefrom as unpatentable over Adams ’375, Adams ’061, and Dekker. Rejection II; Adams ’375, Adams ’061, Dekker, and Adams ’918. The Examiner does not rely on the disclosure of Adams ’918 in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies in the rejection based on Adams Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 7 ’375, Adams ’061, and Dekker. We do not sustain Rejection II for the same reasons as Rejection I. Rejection III; Siemens, Dardis, Adams ’061, and Dekker Claim 7 The Examiner finds that Siemens discloses many of the limitations of the liquid ring pump of claim 7, including first and second flow members, but does not disclose that the first and second flow members are connected to a reservoir. Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner finds, however, that Adams ’061 discloses first and second flow members connected to a reservoir. Id. at 13. The Examiner considers that it would have been obvious to connect first and second flow members of Siemens to a reservoir to supply recycled liquid to the liquid ring pump inlet in order to reduce the amount of liquid waste by recycling the liquid. Id. The Examiner also finds that Siemens does not disclose an intake valve movable between an opened position and a closed position, but that Dekker does. Id. at 13-14. The Examiner also considers that it would have been obvious to utilize an inlet valve in the system of Siemens to control the fluid entering the inlet of the pump. Id. at 14. According to the Examiner, the claimed operating positions of the intake valve and the first and second valves during start-up and running is an intended use of the valves, and that the modified Siemens is capable of performing the claimed intended use. Id. Appellant asserts that the arguments against the Examiner’s “intended use” assertion for Adams ’375 apply equally to Siemens. Appeal Br. 15; see also id. at 7-9. In particular, Appellant asserts that the valves of Siemens, Adams ’061, and Dekker do not have the same “coordinated states” of the Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 8 claimed valves. Id. at 16. Thus, according to Appellant, “[t]he Examiner’s reliance on intended use [] disregard[s] significant parts of Appellant’s claims.” Id. at 8. We are not apprised of Examiner error regarding the interpretation of claim 7 applied in the rejection. Unlike Adams ’375, Siemens discloses first and second flow members 9, 17 having respective valves 13, 19 (see Siemens, Fig. 1) that are used to regulate the flows and which “can be shut off.” Siemens, 2, ¶ 3. Given that valves 13 and 19 are used to regulate flows including to shut off the flow, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Siemens is capable of operating in a start-up mode in which “the first valve is opened, and the second valve is closed,” and capable of operating in a running mode of the liquid ring pump following the start-up mode in which “the first valve is closed, and the second valve is opened.” Appellant’s argument regarding the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7, i.e., that it does not recite an intended use, is unavailing because claim 7, for example, recites, in passive voice, “during a start-up mode [a running mode] of the liquid ring pump the intake valve is moved toward the closed [open] position.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). Appellant’s claim 7 does not recite a control, or a controller, programmed in a particular manner. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); see also Final Act. 5; MPEP 2114 II. Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 9 Instead of specifying structure that performs the recited function, Appellant’s claim 7 leaves open the question of what (or even who) controls the intake valve and the first and second valves such that “during a start-up mode of the liquid ring pump the intake valve is moved toward the closed position, the first valve is opened, and the second valve is closed.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). As the “moved toward the closed position” limitation does not modify structure, we agree with the Examiner that this limitation amounts to the recitation of mere intended use of the structure actually recited in claim 7. Consequently, Appellant’s argument regarding intended use fails to identify Examiner error. Appellant also argues that Dekker “only teaches placement of an inlet valve ¾ closed,” and does not disclose a running mode and an open position in the running mode. Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, movement of the intake valve is coordinated with the open and closed states of the first and second valve, and Siemens does not disclose coordinated movement. Id. In response, the Examiner contends that the inlet valve of Dekker is “structurally capable of being ‘moved toward an open position’ when the pump is running,” in order to operate properly and draw fluid through the inlet. Ans. 31-32. According to the Examiner, Siemens as modified by Dekker would also be structurally capable of opening the intake valve in the same manner, and the first and second valves of Siemens are also structurally capable of opening or closing to control operation of the pump. Id. at 32. The Examiner has the better position. Siemens discloses a device for “producing a vacuum in a space filled simultaneously with gases and vapors, the contents of this space are drawn off by means of a water ring pump and Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 10 the process water for this pump is simultaneously used as cooling water for precipitating the vapors.” Siemens, 1. Siemens also discloses that “[t]he rate of vapor deposition depends on the suction capacity of the water ring pump and the amount of process water injected.” Id. at 2. Siemens discloses first and second valves to regulate “the necessary amount of operating water used for condensation.” Id. Appellant provides no explanation as to why such a structure would render Siemens’s pump incapable of coordinating the movement of the first and second valves. Further, we find nothing in Siemens that requires both valves to be open for a particular operation. Indeed, Siemens discloses that operation of the pump is controlled so that “you do not need a special condensate pump” (Siemens, 2), which is substantially similar to Appellant’s description of the claimed pump. See Spec. ¶ 31; see also Appeal Br. 7. Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that Siemens’s pump is incapable of the intended use recited in claim 7. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of claim 7, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7, and claim 8 depending therefrom, which Appellant does not argue separately. Claim 11 Claim 11 depends from claim 7. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s application of “intended use” ignores that “[e]xisting systems use a pump to drive sealing fluid into a liquid ring pump.” Appeal Br. 17. As discussed above, however, Siemens discloses that operation of the pump is controlled so that “you do not need a special condensate pump.” Siemens, 2. Appellant provides no explanation as to why Siemens’s pump would be Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 11 incapable of drawing sealing liquid in as recited in claim 11. Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that Siemens’s pump is incapable of the intended use recited in claim 11. Claim 14 Claim 14 depends from claim 7. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s application of “intended use” ignores the pressure requirement of claim 14. Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner, however, relies not only on “intended use,” but also on the knowledge of an ordinary artisan. See Ans. 49. In particular, the Examiner asserts that an ordinary artisan would understand that “liquid flows through a pipe from an area of relatively high pressure to an area of relatively low pressure.” Id. Appellant provides no explanation as to why Siemens’s pump would be incapable of creating a “pressure within the reservoir [that] is greater than the pressure within the cone seal[ing] area,” as recited in claim 14. Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that Siemens’s pump is incapable of the intended use recited in claim 14. Claim 15 In rejecting claim 15, the Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning as for claim 7. Final Act. 16-19. Appellant argues that the Examiner ignores the relationship between different modes of the liquid ring pump and the operation of the valves, which according to Appellant “is structure, not intended use.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant asserts, moreover, that “Siemens teaches a valve 13 that is open in all modes of its pump.” Id. Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. As discussed above, Siemens discloses first and second valves to regulate “the necessary amount of operating water used for condensation.” Siemens, 2. Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 12 Appellant provides no explanation as to why such a structure would render Siemens’s pump incapable of coordinating the movement of the first and second valves. Further, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, we find nothing in Siemens that requires valve 13 be open in all modes of operation. Other than unsubstantiated attorney argument, we do not discern any evidence that Siemens’s pump is incapable of the intended use recited in claim 15. Claim 17 Claim 17 depends from claim15. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s application of “intended use” ignores the pressure requirement of claim 17. Appeal Br. 18-19. The Examiner, however, relies not only on “intended use,” but also on the knowledge of an ordinary artisan. See Ans. 44. In particular, the Examiner asserts that an ordinary artisan would understand that “liquid flows through a pipe from an area of relatively high pressure to an area of relatively low pressure.” Id. Appellant provides no explanation as to why Siemens’s pump would be incapable of “produc[ing] a low pressure region in the inlet channel with respect to the reservoir,” as recited in claim 17. Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that Siemens’s pump is incapable of the intended use recited in claim 17. Claim 20 Claim 20 depends from claim 15. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s application of “intended use” ignores the pressure requirement of claim 20. Appeal Br. 19. The Examiner, however, relies not only on “intended use,” but also on the knowledge of an ordinary artisan. See Ans. 49. In particular, the Examiner asserts that an ordinary artisan would understand that “liquid flows through a pipe from an area of relatively high pressure to an area of relatively low pressure.” Id. Appellant provides no Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 13 explanation as to why Siemens’s pump would be incapable of creating a “pressure within the reservoir [that] is greater than the pressure within the cone seal area,” as recited in claim 20. Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that Siemens’s pump is incapable of the intended use recited in claim 20. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of claims 7, 8, 11-15, and 17-20, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection III. Rejection IV; Siemens, Dardis, Adams ’061, Dekker, and Adams ’918 Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 7, and claim 16 depends from claim 15. Appellant does not make arguments for the patentability of claims 9, 10, and 16, aside from those discussed above in Rejection III regarding claims 7 and 15. See Appeal Br. 7-25. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection IV for the same reasons as Rejection III. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections based on Adams ’375 are reversed, and the Examiner’s rejections based on Siemens are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 7, 8, 11-15, 17-20 103 Adams ’375, Adams ’061, Dekker 7, 8, 11-15, 17-20 9, 10, 16 103 Adams ’375, Adams ’061, Dekker, Adams ’918 9, 10, 16 Appeal 2021-002127 Application 14/991,082 14 7, 8, 11-15, 17-20 103 Siemens, Dardis, Adams ’061, Dekker 7, 8, 11-15, 17-20 9, 10, 16 103 Siemens, Dardis, Adams ’061, Dekker, Adams ’918 9, 10, 16 Overall Outcome4 7-20 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. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) states: “The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that claim.”