Ex Parte Evans

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2016

12504882 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/504,882
94591 7590
Johnson Matthey Inc,
435 Devon Park Dr.
Suite 600
07/17/2009
06/10/2016
Wayne, PA 19087-1998
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Evans
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.
CAT025US2 1984
EXAMINER
SHAAWAT,MUSSAA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2016 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):
J ohnsonMatthey IP@matthey.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN EV ANS
Appeal2014-003186
Application 12/504,882
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 4, and 6-10 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-003186
Application 12/504,882
THE INVENTION
The Appellant's claimed invention is directed to metering and
delivering a material to one or more units (Spec. i-f 3). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A material delivery system comprising:
a delivery vessel configured to deliver material to two or
more fluid catalyst cracking ("FCC") units;
at least one dispense mechanism outlet configured to
couple the delivery vessel to the two or more FCC units.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1, 4, and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Evans (US Publication No. 2005/0103684 Al).
FfNDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 1
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10
The Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because "Evans
does not suggest a delivery vessel configured to deliver material to two or
more fluid catalyst cracking ('FCC') units, nor does it suggest at least one
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
2
Appeal2014-003186
Application 12/504,882
dispense mechanism outlet configured to couple the delivery vessel to the
two or more FCC units" (Appeal Br. 3). The Appellant contends that the
"Examiner is reading para. [0012] of Evans in a manner that is inconsistent
with the rest of Evans" (id. at 4). According to the Appellant, Evans merely
discloses a "conventional additive injector that only delivers one or more
materials to a single FCC unit at a time" (id.). The Appellant contends that
"[t]here are no selector or diverter valves shown in Evans to allow the
delivery vessel to deliver material to two or more units" (id. at 4--5). The
Appellant also argues that the "Examiner has failed to view the claimed
invention as a whole" (id. at 5).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper.
The Examiner finds that paragraph 12 of Evans suggests connecting the
system to "two or more FCC units" as required by claim 1, and determines
that it would have been obvious to modify Evans to include two or more
FCC units in order to enhance process flexibility (Ans. 3).
We agree with the Examiner. We first note that claim 1, on its face,
does not recite "selector or diverter valves." Nor does claim 1 require that
the system is configured to deliver material to the two or more FCC units at
the same time. Therefore, the Appellant's arguments in this regard are not
commensurate in scope with the language of the claims.
Regarding the Appellant's argument that the Examiner's reading of
paragraph 12 is "inconsistent with the rest of Evans," we see no such
inconsistency, and the Appellant has not explained why the delivery system
disclosed in Evans could not be configured to be coupled to two FCC units.
Regarding Appellant's argument that the "Examiner has failed to view
the claimed invention as a whole," the Examiner has articulated findings
3
Appeal2014-003186
Application 12/504,882
regarding every limitation of claim 1. The Appellant's argument in this
regard merely reiterates the language of claim 1, and incorrectly asserts that
the "Examiner has not pointed to anything in Evans that would direct one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a delivery vessel or dispense mechanism( s)
configured to allow for delivery of material to more than one FCC unit"
(Appeal Br. 5). However, the Examiner clearly pointed to paragraph 12 as
suggesting this limitation.
Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
The Appellant has not provided separate arguments for dependent
claims 4, 6-8, and 10, and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the
same reasons.
Claim 9
The Appellant contends that "Evans does not teach a device to
minimize backflow" (Appeal Br. 6). According to the Appellant, "a shut-off
valve is simply an open-close valve" and "does not prevent backflow ...
when it is opened" (Reply Br. 3--4).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper,
and finds that "Evans teaches a metering device which can be a shut-off
valve that is placed between the storage vessel where the material is being
delivered from and the FCC unit where the material is delivered too, which
minimizes the backflow" (Ans. 4).
We agree with the Appellant. We have reviewed the cited portions of
Evans and we see no discussion ofbackflow. Thus, the Examiner's finding
that the shut-off valve would minimize backflow is not supported by the
evidence. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 is not sustained.
4
Appeal2014-003186
Application 12/504,882
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10 as being unpatentable over Evans.
We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 9 as being unpatentable over Evans.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10 as being
unpatentable over Evans is sustained.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 9 as being unpatentable over Evans
is not sustained.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5