Ex Parte Hondroulis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2018

13947701 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/947,701 07/22/2013
27530 7590 07/25/2018
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
IP Department
One Wells Fargo Center
301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dimitrios Hondroulis
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.
41932/09001 1335
EXAMINER
SOLIMAN, HAYTHAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1736
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2018 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):
ip@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIMITRIOS HONDROULIS and
JEAN-CLAUDE VACHER, JR.
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701 1
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9, 21, and 22.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Geophia LLC, which, according to the Brief, is
the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701
Independent claim 1 below is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal ( emphases added):
1. A process for producing absorbent materials, the process
compnsmg:
reducing a banana tree stalk into separated fibers;
pressing the separated fibers to generate pressed fibers
having less than 50% moisture content by weight;
reducing moisture content of the pressed fibers by
applying infrared heating to produce pre-dried fibers; and
applying a non-thermal drying process to generate dried
fibers having less than 10% moisture content by weight for
employment in an absorbent material that absorbs
hydrocarbons.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections2 :
(a) claims 1-8, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182, issued Sept. 28, 1999)
("Hondroulis '182") in view of Martinez-Serna Villagran et al. (US
6,599,547 Bl, issued July 29, 2003) ("Martinez-Serna Villagran") and
Sokhansanj ("Combined Grinding and Drying of Biomass in One Operation
Phase I," USDOE Office of Solar Thermal, Biomass Power, and Hydrogen
Technologies, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, report numbers:
ORNL03068I, TRN: US201205%%396, published June 26, 2008)
("Sokhansanj"); and
(b) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hondroulis '182 in view of Martinez-Serna Villagran and Sokhansanj and
2 We refer to the Specification, filed July 22, 2013 ("Spec."); Appeal Brief,
filed Mar. 1, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); the Examiner's Answer, notice emailed
June 28, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed July 26, 2017 ("Reply
Br.").
2
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701
further in view ofHondroulis et al. (US 6,506,307 Bl, issued Jan. 14, 2003)
("Hondroulis '307").
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection over Hondroulis '182, Martinez-Serna Villagran, and
Sokhansanj
Claims 1-8, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hondroulis '182 in view of Martinez-Serna Villagran and
Sokhansanj. Appellant presents separate arguments for claims 1 and 22
(Appeal Br. 3-10). Appellant does not argue claims 2-8 and 21 separately
from claim 1 (id. at 8). Therefore, we address claims 1-8 and 21 as a first
group and claim 22 as a second group.
Claims 1-8 and 21
Appellant's principal argument on appeal is that claim 1 requires two
separate and distinct steps for moisture reduction that are not taught or
suggested by the applied references: one step using infrared heating to
create pre-dried fibers and another using non-thermal drying for the pre-
dried fibers (Appeal Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellant contends the
applied references and their combination do not disclose the production of
pre-dried fibers because Hondroulis '182 discloses one step of drying,
Martinez-Serna Villagran discloses a single drying step that combines two
different methods (i.e., drum drying and infrared heating), and Sokhansanj
also discloses an option for a single drying step (Appeal Br. 4---6). Appellant
asserts the breaking of heating and drying operations apart is critical, citing
paragraphs 16, 19, 20, and 22 of their Specification (Appeal Br. 5; Reply 2).
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Claim 1 recites "reducing
moisture content of the pressed fibers by applying infrared heating to
3
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701
produce pre-dried fibers" and "applying a non-thermal drying process to
generate dried fibers having less than 10% moisture content by weight for
employment in an absorbent material that absorbs hydrocarbons." These
recitations do not require that infrared heating is performed by a separate
operation from an operation for a non-thermal drying process or that the
non-thermal drying process receives the pre-dried fibers from the infrared
heating operation and separately dries the pre-dried fibers. As explained by
the Examiner at pages 8-9 of the Examiner's Answer, the language of claim
1 encompasses a single drying process in which a wet product is dried to a
pre-dried product and further dried to a dried product as moisture is
removed. To the extent Appellant argues the correct interpretation of claim
1 in view of the Specification would require two separate, distinct, and
sequential drying steps, such an interpretation would not be under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification
because it would import features from the Specification into the claims.
Although claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification, limitations
from the specification are not to be read into the claims. See In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner finds Hondroulis '182 discloses
a process for converting tropical material, such as banana tree stalk, into
fibers by pressing the fibers so they have approximately 25-30% liquid
content by weight and then drying the fibers to a liquid content of
approximately 1-15% (Ans. 2-3). The Examiner finds Hondroulis '182
does not disclose using infrared heating to preheat the fibers or using a non-
thermal drying process (id. at 3).
The Examiner finds Martinez-Serna Villagran discloses a method for
4
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701
preparing dehydrated fruits, vegetables, and tubers ( e.g., potato products) in
which infrared heating is used to raise an outer temperature to increase a
drying rate, increase production capacity, and lower residence time (id.).
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Hondroulis
'182 in view of Martinez-Serna Villagran to reduce the liquid content of the
fibers in Hondroulis '182, increase production capacity, and lower residence
time (id.).
The Examiner further finds Sokhansanj discloses a grinder using
mechanical forces instead of direct heat to dry material that, according to
Sokhansanj, saves a significant amount of energy in contrast to other dryers,
such as drum dryers (id. at 4). The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to modify the process of Hondroulis '182, as modified in view of
Martinez-Serna Villagran, further in view of Sokhansanj to reduce the time
and energy required to dry fibers (id.).
Hondroulis ' 182 discloses a process for recovering fiber from
agricultural waste products, such as from banana crops, in which plant
material is processed into a mass of separate fibers, the fibers are washed
and pressed, the pressed fibers are beaten or agitated, and the fibers are
dried, such as via hot air from an incinerator (Hondroulis '182 2:45-52,
4:45-52, 6: 1--4). Hondroulis '182 further discloses that a second reduction
process can be performed to pulverize the dried fibers (id. 6:4--7).
Martinez-Serna Villagran discloses processing fruits, grain,
vegetables, and tubers ( e.g., potatoes) to produce dehydrated products
(Martinez-Serna Villagran 1:12-14). Martinez-Serna Villagran discloses
various drying methods, such as drum drying and infrared drying ( id. 13: 18-
27). Martinez-Serna Villagran discloses that "[u]sing infrared heaters is
5
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701
advantageous in that the heaters can be easily and precisely controlled" (id.
15:38--40). Thus, the combination ofHondroulis '182 and Martinez-Serna
Villagran would have suggested a two-step heating process in which the
fibers of Hondroulis '182 are first heated with infrared heaters, which can be
easily and precisely controlled, as disclosed by Martinez-Serna Villagran,
and then pulverized via the reduction process disclosed by Hondroulis '182,
which would function to heat the fibers further.
Moreover, Martinez-Serna Villagran discloses a drying process can
be drum drying with infrared heating to accelerate drying by reducing the
cooling of the material's outer surface, which otherwise causes the formation
of a wet film that reduces the mass transfer of water through material to a
surrounding environment (Martinez-Serna Villagran 14:33-35, 52----67, 15:1-
19). Sokhansanj discloses a kinetic disintegration system for moisture
extraction from a wet biomass, such as com silage, and discloses that its
process consumes electricity instead of natural gas, unlike a drum dryer, and
thus is less expensive per ton of water removed from a material, based upon
the prices for electricity and natural gas (Sokhansanj 1, 4--5).
As a result, the disclosures of Hondroulis '182, Martinez-Serna
Villagran, and Sokhansanj support the Examiner's findings. Further, the
Examiner has articulated rationales for why it would have been obvious to
modify the process of Hondroulis '182 in view of the disclosures of
Martinez-Serna Villagran, and Sokhansanj. In view of the above, the
disclosures of Hondroulis '182, Martinez-Serna Villagran, and Sokhansanj
would have suggested a single drying operation in which the drying
operation of Hondroulis '182 is modified to use a combination of infrared
heating and kinetic drying in view of Martinez-Serna Villagran's disclosure
6
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701
that infrared drying with drum drying accelerates drying and further in view
of Sokhansanj 's teaching that its kinetic process is more efficient than drum
drying.
Appellant further contends Martinez-Serna Villagran is non-analogous
art because it is directed to preserving the quality of dried foods while the
claimed invention relates to processing stalk fibers to create absorbent
materials and because Martinez-Serna Villagran is for drying edible fruits or
potatoes in less time to avoid degradation and preserve nutritional value of
the food (Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3-5). In view of this, Appellant asserts
one would not have looked to Martinez-Serna Villagran's disclosure and
would have lacked a reason to combine Hondroulis '182 and Martinez-Serna
Villagran (Appeal Br. 8).
These arguments are also unpersuasive. The Examiner finds
Martinez-Serna Villagran is in the same field because Martinez-Serna
Villagran is directed to infrared heating of agricultural products ( e.g., fruits,
vegetables, or tubers (Ans. 11 ). As discussed above, Martinez-Serna
Villagran discloses drying processes for fruits, grain, vegetables, and tubers
( e.g., potatoes) to produce dehydrated products (Martinez-Serna Villagran
1:12-14, 13:18-27).
The Examiner also finds Martinez-Serna Villagran would have been
reasonably pertinent to the Appellant's problem (id.). "A reference is
reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that
of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which
it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
considering his problem" (In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
If a reference disclosure relates to the same problem as that addressed by the
7
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701
claimed invention, "that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness
rejection. An inventor may well have been motivated to consider the
reference when making his invention" (id.). Here, the Examiner finds
Martinez-Serna Villagran's disclosure of drying an agricultural product
would have been reasonably pertinent to Appellant's problem of reducing
the moisture content of banana fibers (i.e., an agricultural product), as
described in paragraph 22 of the Specification (id.). As explained by the
Examiner (Ans. 11-12), it is not necessary for the prior art to achieve the
same advantage discovered by an applicant (see also In re Kemps, 97 F.3d
1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("the motivation in the prior art to combine the
references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish
obviousness")). Therefore, Appellant's arguments do not identify a
reversible error in the Examiner's findings.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 and 21.
Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and recites "further comprising
employing a mesh to control release of the dried fibers, a size of the mesh
dictating a corresponding size of the dried fibers allowed to pass through the
mesh."
The Examiner finds Hondroulis '182 discloses washing fibers and
then using a steel mesh screen to strain washing solution from the washed
fibers (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds Hondroulis '182 does not disclose use
of the mesh after drying fibers but concludes it would have been obvious to
modify the process of Hondroulis '182 to use the mesh screen after drying
(id.).
8
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701
Appellant argues the mesh screen of Hondroulis '182 is not used to
control the release of fibers or dictate fiber size but only to strain washed
fibers and the Examiner's proposed modification uses an entirely different
operation for the one claimed because the mesh screen of Hondroulis ' 182 is
used to separate fluid from fibers while the claimed operation uses a mesh to
separate fibers on the basis of size (Appeal Br. 9--10; Reply Br. 5).
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Claim 22 does not require
that fibers are actually separated on the basis of size or that any fibers
actually pass through the screen, as explained by the Examiner at page 12 of
the Examiner's Answer. Claim 22 encompasses a mesh that controls the
release of fibers and dictates a size of fibers allowed to pass through the
mesh by permitting essentially no fibers to pass through the mesh, as appears
to happen with the mesh screen disclosed by Hondroulis '182 (Hondroulis
'182 5:29--35). As a result, Appellant's argument that the Examiner's
modification regards a different process because the claimed process
separates fibers on the basis of size does not regard the full scope of claim
22, identify a change in function, or otherwise identify a reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 22.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 21, and 22
over Hondroulis '182, Martinez-Serna Villagran, and Sokhansanj.
§ 103 Rejection over Hondroulis '182, Martinez-Serna Villagran,
Sokhansanj, and Hondroulis '307
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hondroulis '182 in view of Martinez-Serna Villagran and Sokhansanj and
9
Appeal2017-010263
Application 13/947,701
further in view of Hondroulis '307. Appellant contends Hondroulis '307
fails to remedy the deficiencies discussed above with regard to the § 103
rejection of claim 1 over Hondroulis '182, Martinez-Serna Villagran, and
Sokhansanj (Appeal Br. 10). For the reasons set forth above, there are no
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Hondroulis
'307. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection over Hondroulis
'182, Martinez-Serna Villagran, Sokhansanj, and Hondroulis '307.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 21, and 22 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).
AFFIRMED
10