Andre Prieur

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2020

14350636 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 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.
14/350,636 04/09/2014 Andre Prieur 0579-1380 2314
466 7590 01/27/2020
YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 Madison Street
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
PICON-FELICIANO, RUBEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2020 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
yandtpair@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDRE PRIEUR
____________________

Appeal 2018-0036941
Application 14/350,636
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 10–22. We have
jurisdiction under § 6(b). We REVERSE.

1 Our Decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
May 30, 2017) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 25, 2018), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 30, 2017) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 3, 2016).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the inventor, Andre Prieur, as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003694
Application 14/350,636

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to an air centrifugation device,
allowing to separate oxygen molecules from nitrogen molecules.”
Spec. 1:5–6.
Claims 1, 12, 20, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. Air centrifugation device, associated to an internal
combustion engine (2) having an air inlet system (24) and an
exhaust system (25), which comprises at least one cylinder (21),
provided with air by an air intake (22), and rejecting combustion
gases by an exhaust orifice (23), said air centrifugation device
(1) comprising a wheel (11), mounted on an axle (12) and placed
inside an envelope (13) containing said wheel (11), said envelope
(13) having a circular shape, the whole system comprising at
least one air intake orifice (14) and at least two distinct exhaust
orifices (15, 16), provided to collect separately oxygen molecules
from an oxygen exhaust orifice (15), and nitrogen molecules
from a nitrogen exhaust orifice (16), while at least one
connecting pipe (3) is provided between the oxygen exhaust
orifice (15) and the air inlet system (24) of the internal
combustion engine (2), wherein,
said wheel (11) comprises blades intended to accelerate
the gases by a rotational movement, the axle (12) of said wheel
(11) being driven in rotation, by a turbine (18) placed in line with
some elements of the exhaust system (25) of the internal
combustion engine (2), or by a motor and a transmission device
adapted to transmit rotary movement of the motor to the axle, the
blades having a forward edge and a rear edge, the wheel having
an axial length extending from the forward edge of the blades to
the rear edge of the blades, the axial length being smaller than an
interior diameter of said envelope (13),
the air intake orifice (14) is placed near a central part of
the envelope (13) of said air centrifugation device (1), while the
oxygen exhaust orifice (15) provided to collect the oxygen is
located on the envelope (13), at a position near a periphery of the
wheel (11), whereas the nitrogen exhaust orifice (16) provided to
Appeal 2018-003694
Application 14/350,636

3
evacuate the nitrogen is also located on the envelope (13), but at
an intermediate position between the axis of the wheel (11) and
the periphery of said wheel (11), and
the shape of the envelope (13), for a part located near the
periphery of wheel (11), comprises a cross section (131) that is
locally wider than a part of the envelope that is nearer the axis of
the wheel, wherein said part located radially closer [to] the
periphery of wheel (11) provides a volume of space designed to
generate a strip of gas through a thickness of which the oxygen
is concentrated.

REJECTIONS3
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 10–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Pletschacher (US 6,363,923 B1, iss. Apr. 2,
2002).
Claims 3–5, 7, and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pletschacher and Blandino (US 6,289,884 B1, iss.
Sept.18, 2001).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pletschacher and Moon (US 2007/0101975 A1, pub.
May 10, 2007).

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7 and 10–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2018-003694
Application 14/350,636

4
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 10–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Appeal Br. 20–23; see also Reply Br. 2–3. Claim 1 recites that
the shape of the envelope (13), for a part located near the
periphery of wheel (11), comprises a cross section (131) that is
locally wider than a part of the envelope that is nearer the axis of
the wheel, wherein said part located radially closer [to] the
periphery of wheel (11) provides a volume of space designed to
generate a strip of gas through a thickness of which the oxygen
is concentrated.
Focusing on phrases from this portion of claim 1 involving the word
“part” (i.e., a part located near the periphery of the wheel; a part of the
envelope that is nearer the axis; and the part located radially closer than the
periphery of the wheel), the Examiner maintains that the terms “a part” and
“the part” render the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the terms refer
to the same elements. See Final Act. 3.
However, we agree with Appellant, that when the clause is read in its
entirety, it is clear that the “part located radially closer [to] the periphery of
wheel (11),” as recited in claim 1, refers to “a part located near the periphery
of wheel (11),” not “a part of the envelope that is nearer the axis of the
wheel.” See Appeal Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 3.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 10–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

Appeal 2018-003694
Application 14/350,636

5
Anticipation
We also are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 12, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Pletschacher, because Pletschacher does not teach
that
the shape of the envelope (13), for a part located near the
periphery of wheel (11), comprises a cross section (131) that is
locally wider than a part of the envelope that is nearer the axis of
the wheel, wherein said part located radially closer [to] the
periphery of wheel (11) provides a volume of space designed to
generate a strip of gas through a thickness of which the oxygen
is concentrated[,]
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 12, 20, and 21. See
Reply Br. 15–17; see also Appeal Br. 25–29.
Pletschacher relates to a gas centrifuge for enriching oxygen in the
combustion air of internal-combustion engines. Pletschacher, col. 1, ll. 5–7.
Housing 6 of gas centrifuge 1 is flanged to exhaust pipe 4, and rotor 9 is
pivotally mounted in cylinder interior 8 of gas centrifuge 1. Id. at col. 3, ll.
24–31. Rotor 9 has three blades 17 extending from rotation axis 7 to
cylinder interior wall 18 so that only a gap receiving tolerances arises on
interior wall 18. Id. at col. 3, ll. 38–40. Disposed on cylinder interior wall
on the outlet side is annular receiving channel 22 for oxygen enriched
combustion air. Id. at col. 3, ll. 61–64. Nitrogen-rich air is released into the
atmosphere through outlet openings 25 in end wall 23 between receiving
channel 22 and rotor axis 7. Id. at col. 3, l. 65–col. 4, l. 2.
The Examiner finds that Pletschacher’s housing 6 constitutes the
claimed “envelope.” Ans. 14. The Examiner further finds that Pletschacher
Appeal 2018-003694
Application 14/350,636

6
at Figure 3, as annotated by the Examiner, describes the claimed shape of the
envelope. In particular, the Examiner finds that it
is evident that the part located near the periphery of [the] wheel,
comprises a cross section that is locally wider than a part of the
envelope that is neare[r] the axis of the wheel because there are
2 concentric circles[:] One near the periphery of [the] wheel and
envelope[,] and the other circle close to the axis of the wheel.
Accordingly, because of the fact that both concentric circles have
different radius [sic] (being the one near the periphery with larger
radius)[, it] is evident that one will have a wider cross section
than the other.
Ans. 15. As an initial matter, we agree with Appellant (see Appeal Br. 24–
25) that the annotated Figures provided by the Examiner are not legible.
The Examiner does not provide legible annotations in the Answer.
Moreover, the Examiner does not otherwise identify the structures in
Pletschacher’s Figure 3 referred to by the Examiner as “2 concentric
circles.” As a result, we cannot understand how the Examiner interprets
Pletschacher’s Figure 3 as teaching the argued claim limitation.
In any event, Figure 3 of Pletschacher shows a cross section of gas
centrifuge 1 taken along line III–III of Pletschacher’s Figure 2. This
horizontal section, at best, depicts a shape of housing 6 for a part located
near the periphery of the wheel — namely, housing 6 having a diameter that
extends around blades 17 and other structures within the housing. But this
view, which does not show a portion of housing 6 nearer the axis of the
wheel, does not indicate that housing 6 has a cross section that is locally
wider near the periphery of the wheel than a part located nearer the axis of
the wheel. Here, the Examiner does not adequately support the finding that
the shape of Pletschacher’s envelope (i.e., housing 6) for a part located near
the periphery of wheel, comprises a cross section that is locally wider than a
Appeal 2018-003694
Application 14/350,636

7
part of the envelope that is nearer the axis of the wheel, as recited by claim
1, and similarly recited by claims 12, 20, and 21.
We also are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 12, and 20, and dependent claim 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pletschacher, because
Pletschacher does not teach “the wheel having an axial length extending
from the forward edge of the blades to the rear edge of the blades, the axial
length being smaller than an interior diameter of said envelope (13),” as
recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 12, 20, and 22. See Reply
Br. 15–17.
The Examiner reasons that Pletschacher’s blades 17 inherently have
an axial length smaller than the interior diameter of housing 6 (i.e., the
claimed housing), because the blades are mounted within the interior of
housing 6. Id. (citing Pletschacher, Fig. 3). The problem with the
Examiner’s analysis, as pointed out by Appellant (Reply Br. 15–16), is that
the axial length of blades 17 is perpendicular to the interior diameter of
housing 6. Figure 3 of Pletschacher does not show the axial length of blades
17. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Pletschacher teaches that in the
axial direction, blades 17 have “great length,” preferably more than twice the
rotor radius. Id. at col. 3, ll. 53–55; see also id. at col. 3, ll. 59–60
(describing that the axial length of blades 17 should be “at least greater than
the greatest radius of rotor 9” even if another symmetrical interior shape is
used) (emphasis omitted). For at least this additional reason, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 20, and dependent
claim 22, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pletschacher.
Appeal 2018-003694
Application 14/350,636

8
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 12,
20, and 21 and their dependent claims 10, 13, 15, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Pletschacher.

Obviousness
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 3–5, 7, and 16–19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pletschacher and Blandino, and claims 11
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pletschacher and Moon do
not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, 20, and
21.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 3–5, 7, 11, 14,
and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7,
10–22
112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 1, 3–5, 7, 10–22
1, 10, 12,
13, 15,
20–22
102(b) Pletschacher 1, 10, 12, 13,
15, 20–22
3–5, 7,
16–19
103(a) Pletschacher, Blandino 3–5, 7, 16–19
11, 14 103(a) Pletschacher, Moon 11, 14
Overall Outcome 1, 3–5, 7, 10–22

Appeal 2018-003694
Application 14/350,636

9
REVERSED