Ex Parte Dulle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2018

13686971 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/686,971 11128/2012 Karl-Heinz DULLE
20311 7590 06/26/2018
LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP
30 BROAD STREET
21st FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10004
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.
267U-153 7842
EXAMINER
COHEN, BRIAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 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):
info@lmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UHDENORA S.P.A., KARL-HEINZ DULLE,
FRANK FUNCK, DIRK HOORMANN,
STEFAN OELMANN, PETER WOLTERING,
CARSTEN SCHMITT, and PHILIPP HOFMANN
Appeal2017-008498
Application 13/686,971 1
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 12-14, 16, 19 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellant is the Applicant, UHDENORA S.P.A., which according to the
Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008498
Application 13/686,971
The invention relates generally to an electrode of an electrolysis cell
for gas-producing electrochemical processes. (Spec. i-f 10). Independent
claim 12 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is reproduced
below:
12. An electrode of an electrolysis cell for gas-producing
electrochemical processes comprising a plurality of horizontal
lamellar elements,
the lamellar elements having the design of a flat C profile with
a plane surface area without constructional elevations and
depressions,
the flat C profile having a flat belly section in the center
area of the flat C profile and one or more flank parts extending
from the flat belly section to form the flat C profile,
the flat belly section having a plurality of through-
going holes lined up in rows and arranged diagonally to
one another,
the flank parts having through-going holes, and
one or more transitional sections of random shape
being arranged between the flat belly section and the one
or more flank parts.
Claims Appendix to App. Br.
The Examiner entered the following new grounds of rejection that are
presented for our review:
I. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Scannell
(US 5,660,698, issued Aug. 26, 1997).
II. Claims 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Scannell.
2
Appeal2017-008498
Application 13/686,971
III. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Scannell in
view of Federico (US 2009/0050472 Al, Feb. 26, 2009).
IV. Claims 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Scannell in view of Dulle (US 2008/0116081 Al, May
22, 2008).
V. Claims 12, 14, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Dulle in view of Scannell.
VI. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dulle in
view of Scannell and Federico.
VII. Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Dulle in view of Scannell and Meneghini (US 2006/0163081
Al, July 27, 2006).
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in
the Answer. (Ans. 3-16.)
OPINION
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellant, we determine
that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections
of claims 12-14, 16, 19 and 20. We adopt the reasoning presented by the
Examiner and add the following:
Rejection I
Claim 12
The Examiner found Scannell describes all the elements of claim 12.
The Examiner found Scannell teaches an electrode for an electrolysis cell
3
Appeal2017-008498
Application 13/686,971
having a flat C profile having a flat belly section and at least one flank part
extending from the flat belly section. (Scannell, col. 3, lines 12-25, Figs. 1 b
and 3). The Examiner found Scannell teaches that the holes (8) allow for
gases generated during the electrolysis process to escape the electrode
surface. (Scannell, col. 3, lines 32-38). The Examiner found Scannell
teaches a transition between the flat belly section and the flank. See Fig. lb,
Fig. 2 and modified Fig. 3 on pages of the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 11-12).
Appellant argues Scannell teaches louver-type arrangement which
produces a lateral flow in the cell because the gas bubbles that gather under
the individual lamellar elements following an upward stream through the
opening provided by the design. (Reply Br. 3--4).
This argument lacks persuasive merit. Appellant has not disputed the
Examiner's determination that Scannell teaches electrodes comprising
laminar elements having a flat C profile having a flat belly section and at
least one flank part extending from the flat belly section that includes holes
(8) that allow for gases generated during the electrolysis process to escape
the electrode surface. (See generally Reply Br.). Appellant's argument does
not address the rejection provided by the Examiner.
Rejection II
Claims 14, 16 and 19
Appellant argues the rejection by addressing the features of the
claimed invention, specifically the arrangement of the through going holes
lined up in rows and arranged diagonally. (Reply Br. 4).
This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the
rejection provided by the Examiner. As set forth above, the Examiner
4
Appeal2017-008498
Application 13/686,971
determined that Scannell teaches holes that allow for gases generated during
the electrolysis process to escape the electrode surface.
Rejections III and IV
Claims 13, 16, 19 and 20
Appellant argues Scannell does not provide holes and Federico's
teaching of punched holes does not cure the defect. (Reply Br. 4--5).
Appellant also argues Scannell does not disclose or suggest any solution to
the problem that a gas quantity remains underneath the louvre-type elements
which would motivate one skilled in the art to modify Scannell as per Dulle.
(Reply Br. 5).
This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the
rejection provided by the Examiner. Appellant has not disputed the
Examiner's determination that Scannell teaches the holes (8) that allow for
gases generated during the electrolysis process to escape the electrode
surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
holes/openings within the electrode would allow gas to move throughout the
system. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
configurations that would facilitate the movement of generated gas.
Rejection V
Claims 12, 14, 16, 19 and 20
The Examiner found Dulle teaches an electrode comprising a lamellar
element having a flat C profile, which includes the belly section, having
through holes, and one or more flank parts extending from the belly section.
(Final Act. 3-5). As stated above, the Examiner found Scannell teaches an
5
Appeal2017-008498
Application 13/686,971
electrode for an electrolysis cell having a flat C profile having a flat belly
section and at least one flank part extending from the flat belly section. The
Examiner determined it would have been obvious to form an electrode
comprising a lamellar element having a flat C profile including holes that
allow for gases generated during the electrolysis process to escape the
electrode surface. (Final Act. 7).
Appellant argues Dulle describes a disadvantageous electrode design
comprising laminar elements having grooves that increase the surface area
due to the elevations and depressions. (App. Br. 5). Appellant argues the
Examiner has improperly relied upon Appellant's specification to suggest
forming an electrode that does not comprise grooves. (App. Br. 5).
Appellants' argument lacks persuasive merit. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized, as exhibited by Scannell, that
electrodes having laminar elements that did not include grooves.
Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
envisioned electrodes comprising laminar elements having a flat C profile
having a flat belly section and at least one flank part extending from the flat
belly section that includes holes that allow for gases generated during the
electrolysis process to escape the electrode surface.
Rejections VI and VII
Claims 13, 16 and 19
Appellant argues Federico and Meneghini do not add anything to the
already deficient combination of Dulle and Scannell. (Appeal Br. 11 ).
As stated above, the arguments presented against the combination of
Dulle and Scannell were not found persuasive. Accordingly, because
6
Appeal2017-008498
Application 13/686,971
Appellants have not advanced sufficiently separate arguments against claims
13, 16 and 19, we sustain the rejections of these claims for the reasons
presented by the Examiner and given above.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner we
sustain the appealed rejections.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 12-14, 16, 19 and 20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7