Ex Parte Hartz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 24, 2012

10859031 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 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.
10/859,031 06/01/2004 Helge Hartz 2162.111800/DE0393 5859
10742 7590 07/24/2012
GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.
c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson
10333 Richmond , Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
LEADER, WILLIAM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2012 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 HELGE HARTZ, MARKUS NOPPER,
and AXEL PREUSSE
____________

Appeal 2010-007281
Application 10/859,031
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 16, 21, and 26 as
unpatentable over Wadensweiler (US 6,841,057 B2, issued Jan. 11, 2005) in
view of Trotter (US 5,387,349, issued Feb. 7, 1995) or Stream (US
5,831,727, issued Nov. 3, 1998) and further in view of Gilmore (US
6,613,217 B1, issued Sep. 2, 2003) or Schmidtke (US 6,355,096 B1, issued
Mar. 12, 2002) and of dependent claims 17, 18, 20, 22-25, 29, and 31-37 as
Appeal 2010-007281
Application 10/859,031

2
unpatentable over these references alone or further in view of other prior art
of record. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a method of operating a storage tank for a process
liquid comprising supplying the process liquid to an inlet area, generating a
liquid flow from the inlet area to an outlet area via a communicating opening
in the vicinity of the storage tank bottom, the liquid flow within the inlet
area being in a generally vertically downward direction, and adjusting a size
of the communicating opening to regulate the liquid flow so as to
substantially reduce bubbles in the process liquid from moving into the
outlet area (claim 21; see also claims 16 and 26 as well as Fig. 2c).
Representative claim 21 reads as follows:
21. A method of operating a storage tank for a process liquid, said storage
tank comprising an inlet area and an outlet area, the method comprising:

supplying said process liquid to said inlet area of said storage tank;

generating a liquid flow from said inlet area to said outlet area of said
storage tank via a communicating opening that is disposed in the vicinity of
a bottom of said storage tank, said liquid flow within said inlet area being in
a generally vertically downward direction; and

movably adjusting a size of said communicating opening to regulate
said liquid flow so as to substantially reduce bubbles in said process liquid
from moving into said outlet area of said storage tank.

Appellants' nonobviousness position relates to limitations of the
independent claims only, of which claim 21 is representative. The
dependent claims on appeal are not separately argued (App. Br. 17-19). As
Appeal 2010-007281
Application 10/859,031

3
a consequence, the dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent
independent claims.
We sustain the § 103 rejections on appeal based on the findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to argument which are well expressed
by the Examiner in the Answer. The following comments are added for
emphasis.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Wadensweiler's bubble reducing
process so that liquid flows around baffles in a down-and-up, rather than
side-to-side, manner in view of Trotter or Stream (Ans. para. bridging 6-7)
and that it would have been obvious to make such baffles and the openings
defined thereby adjustable in view of Gilmore or Schmidtke (id. at 8).
As support for their nonobviousness position, Appellants describe
differences between the independent claims and Wadensweiler, Trotter,
Gilmore, and Schmidtke and then state without embellishment that each of
these references teaches away from their claimed method (see, e.g., App. Br.
8, 10, 16, para. bridging 17-18).1 For example, Appellants reiterate the
Examiner's concession that the independent claims require a vertical liquid
flow whereas Wadensweiler discloses a horizontal liquid flow and then state
that "Wadensweiler therefore teaches away from the flow configuration
defined by the pending independent claims" (id. at 8).
However, Appellants do not define and apply the legal test for
assessing whether an applied reference teaches away from a claimed

1 Appellants do not discuss the Stream reference specifically in their Appeal
or Reply Briefs.
Appeal 2010-007281
Application 10/859,031

4
invention. See, e.g., In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For
example, Appellants do not explain why they believe Wadensweiler
criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages, and thereby teaches away
from, the claimed vertical liquid flow. It follows that Appellants' teaching-
away statements are merely unsupported assertions which fail to reveal any
error in the Examiner's obviousness conclusions.
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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl