ARKEMA FRANCE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

2019006736 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
13/799,242 03/13/2013 Jean-Alex Laffitte 033808.254CON1 7897
441 7590 09/02/2020
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street
Suite 400
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, NATASHA N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
docketing@sgrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEAN-ALEX LAFFITTE, BERNARD MONGUILLON, and
PIERRE STACHURA
Appeal 2019-006736
Application 13/799,242
Technology Center 1700

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 13–16, 22–24, and 26–31.
Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed March 13, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed June 18, 2018
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed April 11, 2019 and Supplemental Appeal
Brief June 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed August 8,
2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed September 9, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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 Arkema France.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006736
Application 13/799,242

2
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to a process for acidic cleaning
of the various elements and vessels that are used in the preparation of beer
and other related fermented beverages. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims
Appendix 14):
1. A process for one stage acidic washing to eliminate both beer
stone and yeast ring stains in a beer fermentor comprising the
steps of;
a) pre-washing the fermentor by circulation of an aqueous
solution of sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide to remove
impurities;
b) washing the fermentor containing both beer stone and yeast
ring stains by circulation in said fermentor of an effective
quantity of an aqueous cleaning formulation to remove the yeast
ring stains located at aeration/liquid interfaces and beer stone,
located on bottom and sides of the fermentor, consisting of 0.5 to
20 weight %·methane sulphonic acid, in solution, as the cleaning
agent; one or more organic acids; and one or more additives
selected from the group consisting of rheological additives,
solvents, biocides and other texture agents, co-solvents,
inorganic acids, thickening agents, surface-active agents,
foaming agents, anti-foaming agents, and mixtures thereof at a
temperature between 5°C and 40°C for a sufficient time to allow
complete removal of the yeast ring stain and beer stone from the
surfaces of the beer fermentor; and
c) then rinsing said fermentor by circulation of a rinsing
solution.
Claims 15 and 16 are also independent and recite processes for one
stage acidic wash cleaning of a fermentor containing both beer stone and
yeast ring stains.
Appeal 2019-006736
Application 13/799,242

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Vinkler et al.
hereinafter “Vinkler”
US 3,449,164 June 10, 1969
Schluessler US 4,923,523 May 8, 1990
Strothoff et al.
hereinafter
“Strothoff”
US 2004/0173244 A1 September 9, 2004
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 13–16, 22–24, and 26–31
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schluessler, Vinkler,
and Strothoff. Final Act. 3–6.

OPINION
We limit our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient for disposition
of this appeal.

The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Schluessler, Vinkler, and
Strothoff, the Examiner found Schluessler discloses a process for one stage
acidic wash cleaning of equipment used in the food processing industry
where an effective quantity of a cleaning formulation consisting of methane
sulphonic acid in solution is used as the cleaning agent. Final Act. 3, citing
Schluessler, col. 2, ll. 60–63. The Examiner found Schluessler does not
disclose a pre-washing step, and found Strothoff discloses a preliminary
Appeal 2019-006736
Application 13/799,242

4
alkaline cleaning step in a similar cleaning process for contaminants form
articles used in the food industry. Id. at 4. The Examiner determined it
would have been obvious to optionally pre-clean the equipment as taught by
Strothoff to enhance cleaning efficiency. Id.
The Examiner found Schluessler and Strothoff do not expressly teach
that the food processing equipment being cleaned is a beer fermentor tank
used in the preparation of beer. Id. at 5. The Examiner found Vinkler
teaches that alkyl sulfonic acid cleans beers stone from brewery equipment.
Id. citing Vinkler, col. 2, ll. 34–40. The Examiner determined it would have
been obvious to employ the method of Schluessler and Strothoff to clean
fermentors with a reasonable expectation of successfully cleaning the
equipment. Id. The Examiner determined that because Schluessler,
Strothoff, and Vinkler discloses the process steps of the claimed invention
under similar conditions as disclosed by Appellant, it would be reasonably
expected that the prior art method of cleaning will result in concurrent
cleaning of both the beer stone and yeast ring as recited in the claims as they
are common contaminants expected to be present in beer preparation
equipment. Id. The Examiner further explained that when the prior art
method of using methane sulfonic acid is used to remove beer stone, “it is
reasonably expected that the overlying yeast ring is removed with the
underlying beer stone in the cleaning step.” Ans. 10.
The Examiner found that the prior art does not expressly teach
washing by circulation in a single stage, but because cleaning by circulation
is a technique that is old and well known, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to circulate the cleaning fluid through the
Appeal 2019-006736
Application 13/799,242

5
equipment with a reasonable expectation of success of successful cleaning.
Id.

Appellant’s contentions
Appellant contends that there is insufficient reason, absent
Appellant’s Specification, for combining Schluessler, Strothoff, and Vinkler
to arrive at the method of removing both yeast stains and beer stone in a one
stage cleaning process as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant
contends that the standard process in the beer industry was to first clean the
yeast ring with phosphoric acid because the yeast ring is often located over
the beer stone, and then to clean the beer stone with sulfuric acid. Id. at 9–
10, citing Appeal Br. Appendix A, Declaration of Jean-Alex Lafitte (dated
October 14, 2016, hereinafter “Lafitte Declaration”), ¶ 6; Reply Br. 2–4.
Appellant argues none of the cited references discloses removal of yeast
stains, much less a method for removing beer stone and yeast stains from a
fermentor in one stage as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6; Reply Br. 3–4.

Issue
Has Appellant demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
position that the method of washing the fermentor containing both beer stone
and yeast ring stains with an aqueous cleaning formulation including
methane sulphonic acid recited in claim 1 would have been obvious over the
combined teachings of Schluessler, Vinkler, and Strothoff?

Appeal 2019-006736
Application 13/799,242

6
Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. That is, claim 1 recites a
method including the step of “washing the fermentor containing both beer
stone and yeast ring stains by circulation in said fermentor of an effective
quantity of an aqueous cleaning formulation.” Vinkler is the only prior art
reference cited by the Examiner that discusses removal of stains from
brewery equipment. Vinkler only mentions processes for the removal of
beer stone (Vinkler, col. 1, ll. 27–30), and does not discuss removal of yeast
ring stains.
The only evidence we have on this record regarding yeast ring stains
is Appellant’s Specification and the Lafitte Declaration, both of which
disclose that removal of yeast ring stains occurs in a first step and removal
of beer stone occurs in a second step, because yeast ring stains are often
located over beer stone and the industry standard required a different acid to
remove each type of stain. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 6, 8; Lafitte Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8.
Thus, although we agree with the Examiner that if methane sulphonic
acid were to be applied to a fermentor having both yeast ring stains and beer
stone, both would be removed as a result of the inherent ability of methane
sulphonic acid, the Examiner has not identified evidence of a process where
methane sulphonic acid is applied to a fermentor containing both stains. In
this regard, the Examiner’s explanation in the Answer that when methane
sulphonic acid is applied to remove beer stone, yeast ring stains overlying
the beer stone would also be removed (Ans. 10), presumes the presence of
such yeast ring stains. As discussed above, the only evidence on this record
is that yeast ring stains are removed prior to beer stone and with a different
acid. Therefore, the Examiner has not sufficiently established that it would
Appeal 2019-006736
Application 13/799,242

7
have been obvious to employ methane sulphonic acid to a fermentor
containing yeast ring stains overlying beer stone, where the evidence of
record only indicates that such overlying yeast ring stains would be removed
prior to removing the beer stone.
Thus, the Examiner has not made a sufficient prima facie case that the
prior art renders obvious the method recited in claim 1. Independent claims
15 and 16 recite similar limitations as discussed above for claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 13–
16, 22–24, and 26–31 as obvious over Schluessler, Vinkler, and Strothoff.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8, 10,
13–16, 22–
24, 26–31
103 Schluessler,
Vinkler, Strothoff
1, 2, 8, 10,
13–16, 22–
24, 26–31

REVERSED