American Commercial Lines LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

2020001552 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

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.
14/320,905 07/01/2014 Michael Poindexter 0000MRM/0607603 2885
26874 7590 10/01/2020
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
3300 Great American Tower
301 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
EXAMINER
HICKS, ANGELISA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
patents@fbtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL POINDEXTER, DAVE COOLEY, and
RAYMOND AUBREY
Appeal 2020-001552
Application 14/320,905
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, 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 1–20. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as American
Commercial Barge Line LLC (f/k/a American Commercial Lines LLC).
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-001552
Application 14/320,905

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a crude oil cargo recirculation system.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A recirculation system for a crude oil cargo tank barge
having at least one tank, wherein the recirculation system
comprises:
a pump in fluid communication with the at least one tank;
and
recirculation piping in fluid communication with the pump
and the at least one tank, wherein the recirculation piping extends
through the at least one tank such that an exit of the recirculation
piping is positioned adjacent and towards a bottom surface of the
at least one tank;
wherein the pump is actuatable to pump fluid from the at
least one tank to the recirculation piping, wherein the
recirculation piping is operable to return the pumped fluid to the
at least one tank without further processing the fluid, wherein the
pumped fluid returned to the at least one tank from the exit of the
recirculation piping is operable to remove deposits built-up on
the bottom surface of the at least one tank by diffusing the fluid
in the at least one tank adjacent and towards the bottom surface
of the at least one tank, wherein the pumped fluid is crude oil.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rodriguez US 3,631,832 Jan. 4, 1972
Hoad US 6,712,895 B1 Mar. 30, 2004
Oldham US 2013/0150268 A1 June 13, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–10 and 13–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Oldham in view of Rodriguez. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-001552
Application 14/320,905

3
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Oldham in view of Rodriguez, in further view of Hoad.
Final Act. 10.
OPINION
Obviousness
Although Appellant argues that Oldham is nonanalogous art, we
disagree. The thrust of Appellant’s invention is directed toward an oil cargo
tank, and Oldham is reasonably pertinent to such a device. We do, however,
agree with Appellant that Oldham fails to teach certain aspects of the claim.
Independent claim 1 requires, among other things, recirculation piping
extending through a tank with an exit of the piping positioned “adjacent and
towards a bottom surface” of the tank. Independent claims 16 and 20
include similar recitations. As Appellant argues, “Oldham . . . fails to
disclose that the additional jet outlet is positioned adjacent and towards a
bottom surface of a tank.” Reply Br. 4. As is clearly shown in Oldham’s
Figure 5, return pipe 564 is situated between the end of three of the four jet
pipes and the bottom of the tank. The fourth jet pipe is positioned at the
same level as the other three and so is spaced away from the bottom of the
tank. It is notable that, in the Examiner’s response, the Examiner does not
address that the claims require that the ends of the pipes be adjacent the
bottom of the tank. Even if the Examiner were correct that Oldham directs
the fluid downward with sufficient force to break up deposits at the bottom
of the tank, this structural configuration is clearly absent from Oldham.
Further, Oldham is concerned with directing the pumped fluid
outward to mix fluid within the tank rather than directing it toward the
bottom of the tank. Oldham ¶ 55. Even if Oldham included a jet at the
Appeal 2020-001552
Application 14/320,905

4
bottom of the jet pipes directed toward the bottom of the tank, the majority
of the fluid force would be directed outward, and with the pipes spaced away
from the bottom of the tank rather than adjacent as claimed, Oldham would
not be capable of removing deposit build-up as claimed. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 13–20 103 Oldham,
Rodriguez
1–10, 13–20
11, 12 103 Oldham,
Rodriguez, Hoad
11, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED