Ex Parte Cerea

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

10547839 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017)

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.
405-1029 9990
EXAMINER
YUEN, JESSICA JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/547,839 11/20/2006
7590 08/01/2017
SILVIA SALVADORI, P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Giuseppina Cerea
08/01/2017 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 GIUSEPPINA CEREA
Appeal 2016-001580
Application 10/547,839
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Giuseppina Cerea (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1, 2,
4—8, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over Vezzani ’446 (US 5,255,446, iss. Oct.
26, 1993), Vezzani ’122 (US 5,635,122, iss. June 3, 1997), and Boldt (US
4,302,888, iss. Dec. 1, 1981); and (2) claim 3 as unpatentable over Vezzani
’446, Vezzani ’122, Boldt, and Schmidt (US 5,263,266, iss. Nov. 23, 1993).
Claim 9 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2016-001580
Application 10/547,839
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to a process for drying organic
substances in aqueous phases or wet organic substances in emulsified
organic and aqueous phases.” Spec. 1:5—7, Fig. 1. Claims 1 and 6 are
independent.
Claims 1 and 6 are representative of the claimed subject matter and
recite:
1. A continuous process for drying solid organic substances
in an aqueous phase or a mixed water and organic solvent phase,
comprising the steps of:
Feeding a continuous stream of said substances
having a moisture content of 60-80% into a continuous
turbo-drier, which comprises a cylindrical tubular body
provided with a heating jacket, closed by end caps at both
ends, formed with inlet and outlet openings, and provided
with a bladed rotor mounted coaxially for rotation therein,
at a speed of 200 to 1500 rpm to obtain from said turbo­
drier a continuous output stream of dried powder material
having a moisture content of approximately 10%, and
steam at a temperature within the range of 150° to 270° C;
feeding said continuous stream of dried powder
material and said [sic.] steam into at least one apparatus
for separating the powder material from the steam; and
discharging from said apparatus a continuous
stream of the powder material and a continuous stream of
steam, wherein said steam is fed again into the turbo-drier;
wherein the steam pressure inside the turbo-drier
and said separating apparatus is kept constant and to such
a value to ensure that substantially no oxygen is present by
means of keeping the steam at a constant pressure
comprising a valve connected to a pressure transducer,
such that the powder material cannot be ignited, said
means of keeping the steam at a constant pressure
continuously drawing, downstream of said separating
apparatus, an amount of steam corresponding to the
2
Appeal 2016-001580
Application 10/547,839
amount of steam generated within said turbo-drier.
6. A system for drying solid organic substances in an
aqueous phase or a mixed water and organic solvent phase
comprising:
a continuous turbo-drier comprising a cylindrical
tubular body provided with a heating jacket, closed by end
caps at both ends, having at least one inlet opening for said
solid organic substances in an aqueous phase or a mixed
phase, and having at least one outlet opening for an outlet
stream of dried powder material and steam, and having a
bladed rotor mounted coaxially for rotation therein, and
capable of drying the solid organic substances from a
moisture content of 60-80% to approximately 10%;
a separating apparatus for separating the powder
material from the steam; and
a fan arranged to direct an amount of steam issuing
from said separating apparatus to be recirculated to said
continuous turbo-drier;
wherein said system also comprises means of
keeping the steam at a constant pressure in the system by
removing, downstream of said separating apparatus, a
predetermined amount of said steam before it is taken to
the continuous turbo-drier, wherein said means of keeping
the steam at a constant pressure comprises a valve
connected to a pressure transducer.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, and Boldt
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that the steam pressure inside the
turbo-drier and the separating apparatus “is kept constant and to such a
value to ensure that substantially no oxygen is present by means of keeping
the steam at a constant pressure comprising a valve connected to a pressure
transducer” and the “means of keeping the steam at a constant pressure
3
Appeal 2016-001580
Application 10/547,839
continuously drawing, downstream of said separating apparatus, an amount
of steam corresponding to the amount of steam generated within said turbo­
drier.” Appeal Br. 15, Claims App. The Examiner relies on Vezzani ’446
for the above cited limitations except for “means of keeping the steam at a
constant pressure comprising a valve connected to a pressure transducer.”
See Final Act. 4—5. For that limitation, the Examiner relies on Boldt. See
id. at 5.1 Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Boldt teaches a dryer system (col. 5, line 61) having a means of
keeping the steam at a constant pressure (col. 5, lines 42-63
describing the steam valve opening enough to return the system
to a previous steam pressure) comprising a valve (12, fig. 1, col.
5, line 60) connected to a pressure transducer (25, fig. 1, col. 5,
line 54) in order to overcome possible variations in steam
pressure and thereby assure adequate drying (column 5, lines 42-
50).
Final Act. 5. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
modify Vezzani ’446 and Vezzani ’122 “to include wherein said means of
keeping the steam at a constant pressure comprises a valve connected to a
pressure transducer, as suggested and taught by Boldt, for the purpose of
overcoming possible variations in steam pressure and thereby assuring
adequate drying.” Final Act. 6; see also id. at 7.
Appellant contends that Vezzani ’446 “allows for air to enter into the
circuit to counter balance the extraction of an amount of gaseous flow.
Thus, it cannot ensure the absence of oxygen as it is required by the
presently claimed method.” Appeal Br. 11; see also id. at 9 (“there is
1 The Examiner relies on Vezzani ’122 for disclosure of a turbo-drier having
a bladed rotor with rotation “at a speed of 200 to 1500 rpm.” See Final Act 5;
see also Appeal Br. 15, Claims App.; Vezzani ’122, 2:33—39, 4:30-50.
4
Appeal 2016-001580
Application 10/547,839
introduction of ‘outside’ air in the system described in the ’446 patent.”).
Vezzani ’446 discloses the step of “recycling the gaseous flow thus
obtained to a drying apparatus, after extraction of a portion thereof and
subsequent reintegration with an appropriate drying fluid.” Vezzani ’446
5:16—19 (claim 1) (emphasis added). Vezzani ’446 discloses that the
drying fluid may be air or “an inert gas.” See Vezzani ’446 3:19-21, 25—
28, respectively. Based on Vezzani ’446’s disclosure, a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Vezzani ’446’s process
“ensure[s] that substantially no oxygen is present,” as recited in claim 1.
See Final Act 4 (“substantially no oxygen is present (‘the drying gas is an
inert gas’ col. 3, lines 26—29”); see also Ans. 5; Appeal Br. 15, Claims App.
Appellant contends that “none of the cited references, either alone or
in combination, describes means to keep the steam pressure inside the
apparatus constant by continuously drawing, downstream of the apparatus,
an amount of stream corresponding to the steam generated within the turbo­
drier by the drying substances.” Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 11. In
particular, Appellant contends that Boldt “describes an apparatus in which
the ultimate pressure inside the cylinder is correlated to the desired final
moisture and does not correspond to the amount of steam generated inside
the turbo-drier.” Appeal Br. 11; see also id. at 10.
In this case, the Examiner finds that Vezzani ’446 discloses
an amount of steam corresponding to the amount of steam
generated within said turbo-drier (col. 3, lines 47-65 describing
4000 Nm3/h of gaseous flow entering the turbo-dryer, 5100
Nm3/h of gaseous flow which includes steam generated during
drying exiting the separating apparatus, and 4000 Nm3/h of
gaseous flow exiting the condensing apparatus which shows that
the system is operated to remove an amount of steam
5
Appeal 2016-001580
Application 10/547,839
corresponding to the amount of steam generated within the
turbodryer) [.]
Final Act. 4.
Column 3, lines 47—65, of Vezzani ’446 refers to Example 1, which
describes air as the reintegration drying fluid. See Vezzani ’446 4:1—3. As
such, in Example 1 of Vezzani ’446, “oxygen” is present in the system.
Further, claim 1 requires that the “means of keeping the steam at a constant
pressure continuously drawing ... an amount of steam corresponding to the
amount of steam generated within said turbo-drier.” Appeal Br. 15, Claims
App. (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that Boldt discloses a
means of keeping the steam at a constant pressure including a valve
connected to a pressure transducer. Final Act. 5—6; see also Boldt 5:42—68.
However, Boldt discloses that the valve/pressure transducer is used to
maintain constant steam pressure during “correction intervals between . . .
predetermined correction times.” See Boldt 5:63—68. The Examiner does
not direct us to any discussion in Boldt that the valve/pressure transducer
“continuously draw[s] ... an amount of steam corresponding to [i.e., equal
to] the amount of steam generated within [the] turbo-drier.” See Final Act.
6—7; see also Ans. 6—7; Appeal Br. 15, Claims App.2 Based on the
foregoing reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the
2 Appellant’s Specification describes that “[a] portion of the steam outflowing
from the fan 7 is diverted to duct 11 by actuation of the valve 12 and regulated
by a pressure transducer and control means to ensure that the same steam
pressure is maintained throughout the system. In practice, the valve 12 is used
for drawing, from a circuit including ducts 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 and the apparatus
interposed among them, an amount of steam per unit time which equals [i.e.,
corresponds to] the amount of steam per unit time generated within the turbo­
drier.” Spec. 6:25—31, Fig. 1.
6
Appeal 2016-001580
Application 10/547,839
evidence that the combined teachings of Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, and
Boldt disclose the process of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 10, as
unpatentable over Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, and Boldt.
Claims 6—8 and 11
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 7, 8,
and 11 separate from those presented for independent claim 6. See Appeal
Br. 9-13. We select claim 6 as the representative claim, and claims 7, 8, and
11 stand or fall with claim 6. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that “independent apparatus claim 6 mentions
nothing about ‘substantially no oxygen’ and ‘no outside air’.” Ans. 3, 7. In
response, Appellant contends that “claim 6 is directed to an apparatus in
which substantially no oxygen and no outside air are introduced.” Reply
Br. 2. In particular, Appellant contends that
one skilled in the art would know and appreciate by appraising
the subject matter presently claimed, if the pressure inside a
system is kept constant by a continuous drawing, downstream of
an apparatus, of an amount of steam corresponding to the amount
of steam generated within the turbo-drier, it necessary follows
that the system does not allow for any circulation of outside air.
In other words, the system is closed with respect to the “outside
environment”, i.e., no oxygen could be possibly be present.
Reply Br. 2—3.
As noted supra, claim 1 requires the steam pressure inside the turbo­
drier and the separating apparatus to be “kept constant and to such a value
to ensure that substantially no oxygen is present by means of keeping the
steam at a constant pressure,” wherein the “means of keeping the steam at a
7
Appeal 2016-001580
Application 10/547,839
constant pressure continuously draw[s] ... an amount of steam
corresponding to [i.e., equal to] the amount of steam generated within said
turbo-drier.” Appeal Br. 15, Claims App. In contrast, claim 6 recites
nothing about the presence or absence of “oxygen” or “outside air” and
merely requires the system to “comprise^ means of keeping the steam at a
constant pressure in the system by removing ... a predetermined amount of
said steam before it is taken to the continuous turbo-drier.” Id. at 16—17,
Claims App.; In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
The Examiner takes the position that
[ajpparatus claim 6 merely calls for a drier 1, 7 with a heating
jacket 4 where heating medium is provided to heat solid material
and aqueous phase 23, 24. The material is pushed by a rotary
blade 25, 26 through the drier 1,7. After exiting the drier, the
material is further separated by separators 3, 5 which the exhaust
gas is being recirculated 8 back to the drier 1, 7. A pressure valve
12 is provided to maintain a constant pressure. These are
conventional features in the drying art. There is also no structural
difference between the apparatus claim 6 and the teachings of the
prior art references.
Ans. 4—5; see also Final Act. 7—10. Appellant does not apprise us of
Examiner error.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 6 as unpatentable over
Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, and Boldt. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Vezzani ’446, Vezzani
’122, and Boldt. We further sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8,
and 11, which fall with claim 6.
8
Appeal 2016-001580
Application 10/547,839
Obviousness over Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, Boldt, and Schmidt
Claim 3
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Vezzani
’446, Vezzani ’122, Boldt, and Schmidt is based on the same unsupported
findings and conclusions discussed above with respect to independent claim
1. See Final Act. 11—12. The Examiner does not rely on Schmidt to
remedy the deficiencies of Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, and Boldt.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over
Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, Boldt, and Schmidt.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
and 10 as unpatentable over Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, and Boldt.
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6—8 and 11
as unpatentable over Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, and Boldt.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 3 as
unpatentable over Vezzani ’446, Vezzani ’122, Boldt, and Schmidt.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9