Ex Parte Collins et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 14, 2012

11047348 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2012)

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.
11/047,348 01/28/2005 Michael John Collins 1700.119A 4734
21176 7590 08/14/2012
SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A.
11610 NORTH COMMUNITY HOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277
EXAMINER
VAN, QUANG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL JOHN COLLINS, MICHAEL JOHN COLLINS, JR.,
WYATT PRICE HARGETT, JR., EDWARD EARL KING, and
GARY WILBERT BUSSE
____________

Appeal 2010-008222
Application 11/047,348
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael John Collins et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21-35. Claims
Appeal 2010-008222
Application 11/047,348

2
1-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “apparatus for microwave-
assisted chemistry techniques.” Spec. 1, para. [0002]. Claim 21, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
21. An instrument for microwave assisted chemistry
comprising:
a microwave cavity;
a flow cell in said cavity;
a pump for directing fluid reactants from at least one
source to said flow cell;
a pressure meter in fluid communication with said flow
cell for measuring the pressure of fluid in said flow cell; and
a cooling system in fluid communication with said
microwave cavity for directing coolant into said cavity to cool
said flow cell in said cavity.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Gray US 3,494,723 Feb. 10, 1970
Boucher US 3,926,556 Dec. 16, 1975
Strauss ‘397 US 5,387,397 Feb. 7, 1995
Strauss ‘075 US 5,932,075 Aug. 3, 1999
Gaisford US 6,316,759 B2 Nov. 13, 2001
Barenburg US 6,605,454 B2 Aug. 12, 2003
Appeal 2010-008222
Application 11/047,348

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 21-24, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Strauss ‘397 and Gray.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 27, 30-33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Strauss ‘397, Gray, and Barenburg.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Strauss ‘397, Gray, and Gaisford.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 21-24, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Strauss ‘075 and Boucher.
5. The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Strauss ‘075, Boucher, and Gaisford.
6. The Examiner rejected claims 27, 30-33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Strauss ‘075, Boucher, and Barenburg.
ISSUES
With regard to rejections (1) through (3), Appellants argue that the
rejections should not be sustained because Strauss ‘397 does not disclose or
suggest a pressure meter in fluid communication with the flow cell for
measuring the pressure of fluid in the flow cell, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have been led to direct coolant into the microwave
enclosure of Strauss ‘397 based on the disclosure in Gray. App. Br. 14-16;
Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2010-008222
Application 11/047,348

4
The issues presented by this appeal are:
Does Strauss ‘397 render obvious a pressure meter in fluid
communication with the flow cell for measuring the pressure of fluid in the
flow cell?
Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led to direct coolant
into the microwave enclosure of Strauss ‘397 based on the disclosure in
Gray?
ANALYSIS
Rejections (1) through (3)
Appellants argue all the claims subject to rejection (1) (claims 21-24,
26, 28, and 29) as a group. App. Br. 13-17. Appellants also rely on these
same arguments to rebut rejections (2) and (3). App. Br. 18-19. For the
arguments pertaining to all of the claims subject to rejection (1), we select
claim 21 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Our
decision as to the propriety of rejections (2) and (3) turns on our decision as
to the propriety of rejection (1).
We agree with the Examiner that the pressure meter 16 of Strauss
‘397 is in fluid communication with the flow cell. Ans. 3; Strauss ‘397,
col. 7, ll. 19-23; fig. 2 (showing pressure transducer 16 fluidly connected to
intermediate feed tube section 24 via T-junction 28a, cooling means 14, and
T-junction 28b). For the following reasons, we also find that Strauss ‘397
suggests measuring the pressure of fluid in the flow cell. Strauss ‘397
discloses one embodiment in which an operator may preset the temperature
for a reaction by the temperature setting means, and the microprocessor
Appeal 2010-008222
Application 11/047,348

5
compares this set signal with a signal from a temperature sensor 108 to
determine a difference signal, which signal is used to control any one or
more of the inputs to the pump, microwave generator, or pressure control
means. Strauss ‘397, col. 6, ll. 11-22. Strauss ‘397 discloses for this
embodiment that the temperature sensor 108 is “positioned such that the
temperature of the feed liquid or slurry and entrained reaction product(s) is
measured virtually immediately upon exit of such feed and products from
the intermediate section 103” and that “[a]nother possibility to ensure an
accurate measurement of the temperature of a reaction is to use a fibre optic
or infra-red temperature sensing device positioned to measure the
temperature of the products within the intermediate section 103.” Strauss
‘397, col. 5, ll. 47-60. Strauss ‘397 discloses that “[t]he temperature sensing
means is so positioned because it is highly desirable that the temperature at
which the chemical reaction within the feed occurs be determined to allow
as high a degree of control as possible over a reaction.” Strauss ‘397, col. 5,
ll. 51-55.
Strauss ’397 discloses a second embodiment in which an operator
presets a pressure level, rather than a temperature level, for the reaction and
a feedback arrangement is included to maintain the pressure of a reaction to
the predetermined set level. Strauss ‘397, col. 6, ll. 23-28. The teachings of
Strauss ‘397 discussed above would suggest to one of ordinary skill that to
implement the embodiment in which the control system is set to maintain the
pressure of a reaction at a predetermined set level, the pressure transducer
should be located either as close to the exit of the intermediate section 103
Appeal 2010-008222
Application 11/047,348

6
as possible or located within intermediate section 103 so that the pressure
transducer can determine the pressure at which the chemical reaction within
the feed occurs to allow as high a degree of control as possible over a
reaction. As such, we do not find persuasive Appellants’ argument that
“Strauss ‘397 does not disclose or suggest measuring pressure conditions of
reactants in the flow cell in the microwave cavity.” Reply Br. 6.
We further conclude that one of ordinary skill would have been led to
modify the device of Strauss ‘397 based on the teachings of Gray. In
particular, Gray discloses a “method for preserving perishable organic
materials of natural origin whereby such materials may be quickly and easily
treated without altering, beyond reduction or destruction of microorganisms
or enzymes therein, the chemical nature of the material to any detectable
extent.” Gray, col. 2, ll. 23-28. Gray seeks to avoid “thermal effects on the
material resulting in undesirable physical and chemical changes therein.”
Gray, col. 4, ll. 4-6. To do so, Gray passes coolant gas into a microwave
treatment chamber 31 and over a tube 33 containing flowable material 34.
Gray, col. 5, ll. 56-71; fig. 3. Gray teaches that the further a point in a mass
subjected to microwave radiation is away from the surface where the
microwave energy enters the mass, the less the level of excitation and hence
the lower the temperature. Gray, col. 4, ll. 27-33.
Thus, Gray teaches that to excite molecules in the interior of the mass
to the necessary level of excitation requires excitation in the peripheral
portion to far exceed the necessary level of excitation, which leads to
deleterious effects on the material being treated. Gray, col. 4, ll. 33-40.
Appeal 2010-008222
Application 11/047,348

7
Gray teaches that the cooled walls of the container holding the material act
as a heat sink, which has the effect of preventing excessive rise in
temperature in the peripheral portions of the material being irradiated and
provides a lower temperature differential from the periphery to the interior
portions during irradiation. Gray, col. 4, ll. 48-53. While the purpose of
using the coolant gas in Gray is to prevent a chemical reaction from
occurring, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the
teachings in Gray that the same technique could be used to control chemical
reactions within the treatment chamber by controlling the temperature, and
in particular, the temperature differential between the peripheral portions
and interior portions, of material flowing through the chamber. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“if a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”)
As such, we sustain the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of
claim 21 would have been obvious in view of Strauss ‘397 and Gray.
Claims 22-24, 26, 28, and 29 fall with claim 21. For the same reasons, we
sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 27, 30-33, and 35
based on Strauss ‘397, Gray, and Barenburg and of claims 25 and 34 based
on Strauss ‘397, Gray, and Gaisford.
Rejections (4) through (6)
Because our affirmance of rejections (1) through (3) is dispositive as
to all the claims on appeal, we do not reach rejections (4) through (6).
Appeal 2010-008222
Application 11/047,348

8
CONCLUSIONS
Strauss ‘397 renders obvious a pressure meter in fluid communication
with the flow cell for measuring the pressure of fluid in the flow cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to direct coolant
into the microwave enclosure of Strauss ‘397 based on the disclosure in
Gray.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21-35.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

hh