Ex Parte Buckley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2016

12935658 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/935,658 11/15/2010 David Buckley
65895 7590 06/09/2016
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION
451 FLORIDA STREET
BATON ROUGE, LA 70801-1765
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
OZ-08095-US 6092
EXAMINER
WANGA, TIMON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/09/2016 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):
mariela. stein@albemarle.com
Albemarle.IPDocket@albemarle.com
docket-ip@mcglinchey.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID BUCKLEY, J. DAVID GENDERS, and
DAN ATHERTON1
Appeal2014-009558
Application 12/935,658
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and JAMES
C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1, 45, and 51 as
unpatentable over Boryta (US 2007/0160516 Al, pub. Jul. 12, 2007) in view
of Silva (US 2003/0155301 Al, pub. Aug. 21, 2003) and of remaining
dependent claims 2-22 and 52-72 as unpatentable over these references
1 Rockwood Lithium Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009558
Application 12/935,658
alone or in combination with additional prior art references. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants claim a process for producing a lithium product such as
lithium hydroxide monohydrate crystals comprising the steps of purifying a
lithium containing brine to reduce the total concentration of calcium and
magnesium to less than 150 ppb and electrolyzing the brine to generate a
lithium hydroxide solution containing less than 150 ppb total calcium and
magnesium, and processing the lithium hydroxide solution to produce the
lithium product (independent claims 1, 45, and 51 ).
A copy of representative claim 45, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
45. A process for producing lithium hydroxide
monohydrate crystals comprising steps of:
(a) purifying a lithium containing brine that also contains
sodium and optionally potassium to reduce the total
concentration of calcium and magnesium to less than 150 ppb;
(b) electrolyzing the brine to generate a lithium
hydroxide solution containing less than 150 ppb total calcium
and magnesium, with chlorine and hydrogen gas as byproducts;
and
( c) concentrating and crystallizing the lithium hydroxide
solution to produce lithium hydroxide monohydrate crystals.
Appellants argue the appealed claims together without presenting any
separate arguments specifically directed to the dependent claims including
those which are separately rejected (App. Br. 10-13). Therefore, the
dependent claims will stand or fall with the independent claims of which
claim 45 is representative.
2
Appeal2014-009558
Application 12/935,658
We sustain the rejections on appeal for the reasons given in the Final
Action and the Answer with the following comments added for emphasis.
Appellants argue that "Silva is non-analogous art" (App. Br. 11,
Reply Br. 2).
This argument is unpersuasive because Appellants do not challenge
with any specificity the Examiner's determination in the Final Action and
again in the Answer that Silva is analogous art because it is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which Appellants were concerned
(Final Action 12, Ans. 12).
Appellants' remaining contentions that Silva teaches away from the
claimed invention and away from Boryta (App. Br. 10) and that the
rejections are based on improper hindsight (id. at 11) also lack persuasive
merit for the reasons fully detailed in the Answer (Ans. 11-13).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
3