Ex Parte Højsgaard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2017

12934357 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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.
12/934,357 12/13/2010 S0ren Johannes H0jsgaard 3103-340/17208US00 6869
24112 7590 07/20/2017
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
BREWSTER, HAYDEN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1779
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2017 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 S0REN JOHANNES HOJSGAARD
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2-4, 7, 8, and 19-42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims an apparatus and method for continuously thermally
hydrolyzing sludge in a tube reactor and digesting the thermally hydrolyzed
sludge. App. Br. 2-4.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Veolia Water Solutions &
Technologies Support. Appeal Brief filed January 13, 2016 (“App. Br.”), 2.
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
Claim 19 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
19. A method of continuously thermally hydrolyzing sludge
in a tube reactor and digesting the thermally hydrolyzed sludge,
comprising:
feeding sludge into an inlet of the tube reactor,
forcing the sludge through the tube reactor and increasing
the pressure in the tube reactor such that the temperature within
the reactor can be increased to above 100 degrees Celsius
without the sludge boiling;
injecting steam into the tube reactor and increasing the
temperature of the sludge within the tube reactor to a
temperature above 100 degrees Celsius and thermally
hydrolyzing the sludge to form hydrolyzed sludge;
maintaining the pressure within the tube reactor for a
selected period of time;
injecting water into the tube reactor at a point
downstream from where steam is injected into the reactor and
decreasing the temperature of the sludge in the tube reactor to
below 100 degrees Celsius;
continuing to feed sludge into the inlet end of the tube
reactor such that the sludge continuously flows from the inlet of
the tube reactor to an outlet of the tube reactor,
directing the thermally hydrolyzed sludge from the outlet
end of the tube reactor into a digester; and
digesting the thermally hydrolyzed sludge in the digester
by biologically degrading the thermally hydrolyzed sludge.
App. Br. 22—23 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Answer
entered July 29, 2016 (“Ans.”), which the Examiner sets forth in the Final
Office Action entered July 13, 2015 (“Final Act.”):
I. Claims 2-4, 7, 8, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sargalski et al., Treating Organic Waste with CAMBJ®
THP, 12th European Biosolids and Organic Resources Conference,
2
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
November 2007 in view of Sorensen et al. (US 5,053,142, issued October 1,
1991) and Hong et al. (US 4,822,497, issued April 18, 1989);
II. Claims 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sargalski in view of Sorensen, Hong, and Bullock (US 4,874,509,
issued October 17, 1989);
III. Claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sargalski in view of Sorensen, Hong, Boe et al. (US 2007/0000172 Al,
published January 4, 2007), and Shih (US 5,525,229, issued June 11, 1996);
IV. Claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sargalski in view of Sorensen, Hong, and Cooper et al. (US 2002/0102197
Al, published August 1, 2002);
V. Claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sargalski in view of Sorensen, Hong, Cooper, and Shih;
VI. Claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sargalski in view of Sorensen, Hong, Cooper, and Solheim (US 5,888,307,
March 30, 1999);
VII. Claims 19, 20, 23—26, 28—30, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sargalski in view of Sorensen;
VIII. Claims 21, 22, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sargalski in view of Sorensen and Boe;
IX. Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sargalski in view of Sorensen and Shih;
X. Claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sargalski in view of Sorensen, Hong, and Solheim; and
XI. Claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sargalski in view of Sorensen, Hong, Solheim, and Cooper.
3
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 2-4, 7, 8, 19-26, 29—33, 37, and 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below. We reverse
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 27, 28, 34—36, 38, and 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons provided in the Appeal Brief and below.
Appellant argues independent claims 19, 33, and 37 as a group, and
provides an additional argument directed to only claim 37. Appellant also
provides arguments directed to numerous dependent claims. We
accordingly separately address claim 37, and address claims 19, 33, and their
dependent claims as a group (claims 2-4, 7, 8, 19-26, 29-33, and 40-42),
except for the specifically argued dependent claims (claims 27, 28, 34—36,
38, and 39), which we also separately address. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 2^1, 7. 8. 19-26. 29-33. and 40-42
Sargalski discloses a process for treating organic waste that involves
subjecting the waste to thermal hydrolysis followed by anaerobic digestion.
Sargalski, pg. 11/23. Sargalski discloses that the thermal hydrolysis process
includes pumping the waste into a batch reactor, injecting steam directly into
the reactor to reach an elevated operating pressure and a temperature of 165—
170-C, and then retaining the waste in the reactor under these conditions for
30 minutes. Pg. 16/23. Sargalski discloses opening a pressure-driven valve
at the top of the reactor after completion of the thermal hydrolysis process to
reduce the pressure in the reactor. Pg. 17/23. Sargalski further discloses
that water can be added “to dilute and cool down the hydrolyzed material
after thermal hydrolysis before the material enters the digester(s).” Id.
4
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
The Examiner finds that Sargalski does not disclose conducting
thermal hydrolysis in a tube reactor, and the Examiner relies on Sorenson for
suggesting this feature. Final Act. 30-32. Sorenson discloses a method of
treating sludge that comprises subjecting the sludge to a wet oxidation
process followed by biological degradation. Abstract, col. 11,11. 63—65.
The Examiner finds that the wet oxidation process disclosed in Sorenson is a
form of “thermal hydrolysis.”2 Final Act. 4. Sorenson discloses conducting
the wet oxidation under pressure at a temperature of 150-300-C, and
indicates that the process may be carried out in various types of vessels or
reactors, including tube and batch reactors. Sorenson, col. 5,11. 9—11; col. 8,
11. 61—68; col. 11,11. 46-47. Sorenson discloses that continuously pumping
material to be treated through a plug flow tubular reactor is particularly
useful for wet oxidation. Col. 5,11. 12—15, 27—32. Sorenson further
discloses that “substantially total decomposition may be obtained when the
wet oxidation is performed in a reactor comprising a substantially horizontal
tube.” Col. 11,11.42-45.
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led at the time of Appellant’s invention to conduct Sargalski’s thermal
hydrolysis process continuously in a tubular reactor as disclosed in Sorenson
in order to provide more complete material decomposition as disclosed in
Sorenson. Final Act. 31—32.
2 In the Answer, the Examiner refers to the “previously submitted teaching
and evidentiary reference” indicating that wet oxidation is an oxidative form
of thermal hydrolysis. Ans. 49—50. The Examiner apparently refers to
Anaerobic Digestion, 2008, cited in a form PTO-892 entered on March 13,
2013, which states on page 30-7 that “[w]et air oxidation is a type of thermal
hydrolysis.”
5
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
Appellant argues that “Sorensen provides no reason why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would substitute Sorensen’s tube reactor for
Sargalski’s batch reactor.” App. Br. 6. Appellant contends that “[t]here is
no evidence that a tube reactor provides a more complete material
decomposition than the batch reactors of Sargalski.” App. Br. 7. Appellant
further argues that Sargalski discloses that impressive results were achieved
using batch thermal hydrolysis, and one of ordinary skill in the art therefore
would not have had a reason to substitute a tube reactor for Sargalski’s batch
reactor. App. Br. 7—8.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the
time of Appellant’s invention that continuously conducting thermal
hydrolysis in a tubular reactor as disclosed in Sorenson would
advantageously allow Sargalski’s sludge treatment process to proceed
without interruption, and would therefore provide efficiencies relative to
Sargalski’s batch process. Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s arguments,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to utilize a tubular
reactor as disclosed in Sorenson to continuously conduct Sargalski’s thermal
hydrolysis process to enhance the efficiency of Sargalski’s process.
Appellant further argues that Sorenson’s disclosure of substantially
total decomposition obtained using a tubular reactor refers to a wet oxidation
process, which differs from the thermal hydrolysis process disclosed in
Sargalski. App. Br. 7. Appellant contends that even if a tubular reactor
were more advantageous than a batch reactor for wet oxidation, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have concluded from Sorenson’s
disclosures “that those advantages translate to a thermal hydrolysis process.”
However, as discussed above (see supra note 3), the Examiner
6
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
provided evidence earlier in prosecution that establishes that wet oxidation
as disclosed in Sorenson is a form of thermal hydrolysis. See Anaerobic
Digestion, 2008, page 30-7, cited by the Examiner in a form PTO-892
entered on March 13, 2013. Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s
arguments, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
advantages achieved by continuously conducting wet oxidation in a tubular
reactor as disclosed in Sorensen would also be achieved by continuously
conducting thermal hydrolysis as disclosed in Sargalski in a tubular reactor.
Appellant argues that Sorensen does not teach or suggest injecting
cooling water into a cooling section of a thermal hydrolysis or wet oxidation
reactor, and Appellant contends that “the examiner assumes that Sargalski
injects cooling water downstream and outside of the thermal hydrolysis
reactor.” App. Br. 9-10.
However, as discussed above, Sargalski discloses that water can be
added “to dilute and cool down the hydrolyzed material after thermal
hydrolysis before the material enters the digester(s).” Sargalski, pg. 17/23.
This disclosure in Sargalski reasonably would have suggested injecting
cooling water directly into Sorensen’s tubular reactor to cool the hydrolyzed
material in view of the limited alternative locations where cooling water
could be introduced to the hydrolyzed material before it enters the digester.
Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1337—38 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted)
(“[Wjhen the class of compounds that falls within the genus is so limited
that a person of ordinary skill in the art can ‘at once envisage each member
of this limited class. In that limited circumstance, a reference describing the
genus anticipates every species within the genus.”); Perricone v. Medicis
Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Schaumann, 572
7
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
F.2d 312, 315 (CCPA 1978); In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682 (CCPA
1962).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to conduct
Sargalski’s thermal hydrolysis process continuously in a tubular reactor as
suggested by Sorensen (as discussed above) reasonably would have been
led, through no more than ordinary skill and creativity, to add water directly
to the tubular reactor “to dilute and cool down the hydrolyzed material after
thermal hydrolysis before the material enters the digester(s)” as disclosed in
Sargalski (pg. 17/23). Appellant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive of
reversible error.
Accordingly, on this record, the preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, and we accordingly
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—4, 7, 8, 19—26, 29—33, and
40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 3 7
Independent claim 37 recites an apparatus for treating sludge that
comprises, inter alia, an outlet pressure valve disposed at the outlet end of a
tube reactor for maintaining a predetermined pressure inside the reactor.
Cooper discloses utilizing a pressure valve to maintain pressure in a
hydrolysis reactor, and to control the flow of gaseous products removed
from the reactor. Cooper || 44, 49. In view of these disclosures in Cooper,
the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellant’s invention seeking to conduct Sargalski’s thermal hydrolysis
process in a tubular reactor as suggested by Sorensen would have included a
pressure valve at the outlet end of the tubular reactor in order to maintain a
predetermined pressure inside the reactor, because Cooper demonstrates use
8
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
of such a valve to control and maintain reactor pressure in a thermal
hydrolysis process. Final Act. 25.
Appellant argues that Cooper is not analogous art because “Cooper
has nothing to do with sludge and nothing to do with treating sludge,” and is
therefore not from Appellant’s field of endeavor. App. Br. 14. Appellant
further argues that Cooper is not reasonably related to the problem faced by
the inventor, which “is that of an efficient and effective system and process
for thermally hydrolyzing sludge.” Id.
However, as discussed above, Sargalski discloses conducing thermal
hydrolysis under pressure, and further disclose that “[w]hen the hydrolysis
process is complete, a pressure driven valve at the top of the reactor will be
opened gradually so the pressure can be reduced.” Pg. 17/23. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the pressure in
Sorensen’s tubular reactor, like Sargalski’s batch reactor, would also need to
be maintained at an elevated level during thermal hydrolysis, and reduced
following completion of the process. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the
art seeking to conduct Sargalski’s thermal hydrolysis process in Sorensen’s
tubular reactor (as discussed above) would have sought suitable means to
control the pressure in the tubular reactor during thermal hydrolysis, and
reduce the pressure following completion of the process as disclosed in
Sargalski, and in so doing, reasonably would have looked to Cooper’s
disclosure of a valve used to maintain pressure in a hydrolysis reactor. One
of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably located a valve as
disclosed in Cooper at the outlet end of Sorensen’s tubular reactor, due to
the very limited alternative positions for a reactor pressure control valve. Cf.
Cleave, 560 F.3d at 1337-38.
9
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, Cooper is therefore reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned—
maintaining pressure in a hydrolysis reactor, and is therefore not non-
analogous art. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986—87 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(stating that the analogous art test requires that “a reference is either in the
field of the applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem
with which the inventor was concerned . . . based on the judgment of a
person having ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168, 1171—
1172 (CCPA 1971) (indicating that section 103 requires a presumption of
full knowledge by the inventor of the prior art in the field of his endeavor,
but does not require a presumption of full knowledge by the inventor of prior
art outside the field of his endeavor, i.e., of non-analogous art: “In that
respect, it only requires us to presume that the inventor would have the
ability to select and utilize knowledge from other arts reasonably pertinent to
his particular problem which would be expected of a [person] of ordinary
skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.”).
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible
error, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Claims 27 and 38
Claim 27 depends from claim 19 and requires cooling the hydrolyzed
sludge before reaching the digester by circulating a portion of the
hydrolyzed sludge in the digester to a point upstream of the digester and
mixing the recirculated hydrolyzed sludge with the hydrolyzed sludge being
discharged from the tube reactor. Claim 38 depends from independent claim
37 and requires the claimed apparatus to include a sludge recirculation loop
10
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
operatively connected between the digester and the outlet end of the tube
reactor for cooling sludge.
Shih discloses an apparatus for digesting organic material comprising
first, second, and third chambers. Shih, col. 1,11. 8—11; claim 10. Shih
discloses routing water heated by a heat exchanger in the third chamber to an
inlet in the first chamber to heat material in the first chamber. Col. 3,11. 11—
14; col. 8,11. 1—12. Based on these disclosures, the Examiner finds that one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention would have
been led to “mix an initially colder digestion stream to further cool the
hydrolyzed material, by circulating a portion of the hydrolyzed sludge in the
digester to a point upstream of the digester and mixing the recirculated
hydrolyzed sludge with the hydrolyzed sludge being discharged from the
tube reactor so it may more quickly attain the desired digester temperature.”
Final Act. 26, 38.
However, the Examiner does not adequately explain why the relied-
upon disclosures in Shih of using water heated in a downstream portion of a
digester to heat incoming material in the digester would have fairly
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention cooling hydrolyzed sludge by recirculating a portion of hydrolyzed
sludge in a digester to a point upstream of the digester and mixing the
recirculated hydrolyzed sludge with hydrolyzed sludge being discharged
from a tube reactor. We accordingly reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 27 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 28
Claim 28 depends from claim 19 and recites that the tube reactor
includes steam, water, and sludge inlets, and requires the method to include
11
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
pumping oil into one or more of the inlets to reduce deposits of sludge in the
inlets.
The Examiner finds that Sorensen discloses adjusting the flow of
material in a reactor to prevent deposition of material in the reactor. Final
Act. 34; Sorensen col. 10,11. 30—34. The Examiner finds, without citing any
supporting evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led
“to use a well-known lubricant, such as oil, that is also known to form a
barrier layer, to reduce or prevent sludge deposits on the equipment.” Ans.
55-56.
However, the Examiner fails to provide any evidence that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood oil to be useful for
preventing deposits in a hydrolysis reactor at the time of Appellant’s
invention, and thus would have been led to utilize oil to prevent sludge
deposits on Sorensen’s tubular reactor. The Examiner’s mere unsupported
assertion to that effect is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent
Office . . . may not. . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”); In re
Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962). We accordingly reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 34 and 35
Claim 34 depends from independent claim 33 and recites injecting
cooling water into a cooling zone in the tube reactor and preventing the
backflow of cooling water from the cooling zone towards the inlet of the
tube reactor. Claim 35 depends from claim 34 and recites disposing a
unidirectional valve upstream of the cooling zone to prevent the backflow of
12
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
cooling water from the cooling zone towards the inlet of the tube reactor.
Bullock discloses a device for dissolving air in water, and discloses
feeding the water and air mixture under pressure through a long conduit into
a swimming pool. Bullock col. 1,11. 6—9; col. 2,11. 10—12. The Examiner
relies on Bullock’s disclosure of a back pressure valve near the conduit
outlet that maintains a desired pressure in the conduit. Final Act. 16; see
Bullock col. 2,11. 12—14. The Examiner finds that because “Bullock
demonstrates a unidirectional valve for preventing liquid backflow,” an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been led at the time of Appellant’s
inveniton “to use such a valve to prevent the backflow of cooling water from
the cooling zone towards the inlet of the tube reactor and to thereby improve
the thermal hydrolysis process by keeping the heating and cooling zones
properly separated.” Final Act. 17.
However, the Examiner does not provide any evidence demonstrating
that liquid backflow was known to be problematic at the time of Appellant’s
invention in tubular reactors used to conduct thermal hydrolysis, such as the
tubular reactor disclosed in Sorensen. Accordingly, the Examiner does not
provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to prevent the backflow of cooling water injected
into Sorensen’s tubular reactor as suggested by Sargalski (discussed above)
using a valve as disclosed in Bullock. We accordingly reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 39
Claim 39 depends from independent claim 37 and recites that the
apparatus includes means within the tube reactor for preventing backflow of
cooling water injected into the tube reactor.
13
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
The Examiner relies on Solheim’s disclosure of an apparatus for
hydrolyzing organic material that comprises a multi-stage reactor in which
valves are disposed between each phase of the reactor. Final Act. 27;
Solheim Abstract, Figure, claim 1. The Examiner finds that Solheim utilizes
the valves to control flow between the stages and normalize pressures. Final
Act 27, citing Solheim Figure. The Examiner determines that “Solheim
describes the system as a multistage reactor (Abstract), implying that all
stages can occur in a single vessel,” and further determines that “if one can
place a valve outside a reactor, one can place it inside the reactor where
appropriate or as an obvious matter of design choice, since this is a mere
rearrangement of working parts of a system.” Final Act. 27. The Examiner
findss that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention
would have been led “to employ a means or mechanism, within the tube
reactor, for preventing backflow of cooling water injected into the tube
reactor.” Id.
However, as discussed above, the Examiner does not provide any
evidence demonstrating that liquid backflow was known to be problematic at
the time of Appellant’s invention in tubular reactors used to conduct thermal
hydrolysis. Accordingly, the Examiner does not adequately explain why
Solheim’s disclosure of a multi-stage reactor having valves located between
each stage would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose a valve
inside a single stage tube reactor as disclosed in Sorensen to prevent the
backflow of cooling water injected into the reactor as suggested by
Sargalski. We accordingly reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
14
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
Claim 36
Claim 36 depends from independent claim 33 and recites that the tube
reactor includes a vertical section and a horizontal section. Claim 36 further
recites first directing the sludge into the vertical section and then directing
the sludge from the vertical section to and through the horizontal section,
injecting steam into the vertical section, and injecting cooling water into the
horizontal section.
The Examiner relies on Boe’s disclosure of an L-shape reactor that
“enables a lower length in the reactor and may facilitate its transport under
circumstances where reactor length is a limiting factor.” Final Act. 19; Boe
134. The Examiner finds that, “[gjiven that reactor shape is not expected to
affect hydrolysis performance and that a tube-type reactor can be maintained
within an L-shape,” one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention would have been led “to consider alternate reactor shapes or
designs for flexibility and convenience, and to consider modifying the tube
reactor such that it includes two non-aligned sections . . . [that] may
constitute an L-shape that could provide adequate reactor length but should
be more convenient for transportation purposes.” Final Act. 19.
However, the Examiner does not adequately explain how Boe’s
disclosure of an L-shaped reforming reactor used for the conversion of a
process fluid into hydrogen (Abstract) reasonably would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention first
directing sludge into a vertical section of a hydrolysis reactor, injecting
steam into the vertical section of the reactor, directing the sludge from the
vertical section to and through a horizontal section, and injecting cooling
water into the horizontal section, as required by claim 36. We accordingly
15
Appeal 2017-000159
Application 12/934,357
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
In view of the reasons set forth above, and in the Final Action and the
Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—4, 7, 8, 19—26, 29—
33, 37, and 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 27, 28, 34—36, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16