Larnholm, Per-Reidar et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 31, 202014346558 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/346,558 07/08/2014 Per-Reidar Larnholm SLZR.P-036 3896 57381 7590 03/31/2020 Larson & Anderson, LLC P.O. BOX 4928 DILLON, CO 80435 EXAMINER MCKENZIE, THOMAS B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1776 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2020 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 PER-REIDAR LARNHOLM and FREDERIK ALBERT LAMMERS Appeal 2019-002198 Application 14/346,558 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, 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 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 16–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 Sulzer Chemtech AG. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002198 Application 14/346,558 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A separation apparatus for separation of volume flows of mixtures provided with at least two immiscible phases, comprising: - a vessel provided with: -an inlet for the mixture provided with the at least two immiscible phases; - a separation interior; - at least one heavy phase outlet for a separated heavy phase fraction located on a lower side of the vessel and being connected with a first subsequent separator located outside of the vessel and downstream of the heavy phase outlet, wherein the separated heavy phase fraction leaving the separator through the heavy phase outlet is fed to the first subsequent separator; -a light phase outlet for a separated light phase fraction located above the heavy phase outlet and being connected with a second subsequent separator located outside of the vessel and downstream of the light phase outlet, wherein the separated light phase fraction leaving the vessel through the light phase outlet is fed to the second subsequent separator; wherein the vessel comprises at least one substantially spherical shaped casing to be designed for use under a higher external pressure than 1 atmosphere, and wherein at least one of the first or second subsequent separators is a compact separator, wherein the compact separator is selected from the group consisting of: centrifugal separators, cyclone separators, coalescers and vortex separators, and wherein in the separation interior of the vessel a vane diffuser comprising a plurality of vanes is connected to the inlet for enabling separation of the mixture. Appeal 2019-002198 Application 14/346,558 3 THE REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Fowler US 2,489,370 Nov. 29, 1949 Lovelady US 2,756,837 July 31, 1956 Ditria US 6,197,095 B1 Mar. 6, 2001 Polderman US 6,537,458 B1 Mar. 25, 2003 Hoydal US 6,752,860 B1 June 22, 2004 Atkinson US 2008/0156744 A1 July 3, 2008 Arntzen US 2011/0139625 Al June 16, 2011 THE REJECTION Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 16–19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polderman in view of Lovelady, and further view of Arntzen or Ditria, and still further view of Atkinson, Hoydal, or Fowler. OPINION Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth by each party, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position in the record. We thus reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims for the reasons provided by Appellants in the record, and add the following for emphasis. We refer to pages 3–11 of the Answer regarding the Examiner’s presentation of the rejection. In response to the stated rejection, Appellant argues, inter alia, that one skilled in the art would not have modified Polderman by substituting Polderman’s vessel 17 with Lovelady’s vessel 10 because such a modification would change the principal of operation of Polderman for the reasons expressed by Appellant on pages 4–5 of the Appeal 2019-002198 Application 14/346,558 4 Appeal Brief. This line of argument is reiterated by Appellant on pages 2–3 of the Reply Brief. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As stated by Appellant, Polderman and Lovelady employ completely different equipment and modes for initial separation of gas/liquid. Reply Br. 2. Polderman’s initial separator (e.g. vane separator 35) is “a primary separator” which by itself causes separation of gas/liquid from the inlet stream. Polderman, col. 2 ll. 40–57. Lovelady, on the other hand, as pointed out by Appellant on page 2 of the Reply Brief, has no such “primary separator”, and instead employs a diverter 13 to bias incoming gas/liquid against the wall of his spherical vessel to cause centrifugal separation of gas/liquid in the spherical vessel. Lovelady, Figure 1. Reply Br. 2. Appellant submits that Lovelady’s diverter 13 and Polderman’s vane separator 35 are thus different devices that create completely different conditions and modes of gas/liquid separation within their respective vessels. Reply Br. 2. We agree. We also agree with Appellant that in view of these differences in devices and the modes for initial liquid/gas separation and liquid/liquid separation between Polderman and Lovelady, the teachings of the references are insufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. “If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.” In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). In view of the above, we thus reverse the rejection. Appeal 2019-002198 Application 14/346,558 5 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 16–19 103(a) Polderman, Lovelady, Arntzen, Ditria, Atkinson, Hoydal, Fowler 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 16–19 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 16–19 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation