Ex Parte Lean et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2018

13456628 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/456,628 04/26/2012
61962 7590 06/06/2018
FAY SHARPELLP /XEROX-PARC
1228 EUCLID A VENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MengH.Lean
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.
20081092USDIV/X2339US02 4735
EXAMINER
KEYWORTH, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2018 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 MENG H. LEAN, JEONGGL SEO,
ARMIN R. VOLKEL 1
Appeal2017-009740
Application 13/456,628
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BRIAND. RANGE, and MICHAEL G.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Palo Alto Research Center Incorporation is identified as the real party in
interest (Br. 1 ).
Appeal2017-009740
Application 13/456,628
Appellants claim a method for treating water comprising generating
supercritical water from a source water and separating the supercritical water
into effluent water and wastewater having aggregated particles via a spiral
separator (independent claim 1; see also remaining independent claim 13).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method for treatment of water comprising:
receiving source water having particles therein;
generating supercritical water from the source water, the supercritical
water having a prescribed temperature and pressure; and
separating the supercritical water into effluent water and waste water
having aggregated particles, wherein the supercritical water is separated
using a spiral separator operative to separate the supercritical water into
effluent water and waste water having precipitated particles of salt therein,
the precipitated particles of salt having a composition that is at least in part
determined by the prescribed temperature and pressure of the generated
supercritical water;
whereby different types of salts can be separated from the source
water by selection of the prescribed temperature and pressure.
(Br., Claims Appendix, 8).
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 10 and 11 under the 2nd
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite (Final Action 2).
2
Appeal2017-009740
Application 13/456,628
In addition, the Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Whiting et al. (US 5,543,057 issued Aug. 6, 1996;
hereinafter "Whiting") in view of Lean et al., (US 2008/0128331 Al,
published Jun. 5, 2008; hereinafter "Lean") and rejects remaining claims 2-
14 as unpatentable over these references alone or in combination with
additional prior art references (id. at 3-11).
Appellants present arguments specifically directed to the§ 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 only (Br. 4---6). As a consequence, we will focus on
claim 1 in our assessment of the§ 103(a) rejections advanced in this appeal.
We summarily sustain the§ 112, 2nd paragraph, rejection because
Appellants have not contested this rejection in the appeal record (see
generally Br.).
We also sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1-14 for the reasons
given in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
In the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that Whiting
does not teach using a spiral separator for separating Whiting's supercritical
water into effluent water and wastewater having particles as claimed (Final
Action 3). However, the Examiner finds that Lean discloses using a spiral
separator for separating particles from water (id. at 3--4) and concludes that
it would have been obvious "to provide the spiral separator of Lean as the
separator of Whiting" (id. at 4 ).
3
Appeal2017-009740
Application 13/456,628
Appellants point out that Whiting teaches introducing turbulence
"until the particles are separated out" (Whiting col. 5, 11. 34--35) (Br. 5)
whereas the spiral separator of Lean employs a laminar flow regime (id. at
5---6). Appellants argue that providing Whiting's method with Lean's spiral
separator having laminar flow "would be contrary to the teachings of
Whiting ... [and] would violate the stated principle of Whiting" (id. at 6).
In response, the Examiner agrees that Whiting teaches introducing
turbulence "until the particles are separated out" (Whiting col. 5, 11. 34--35)
but finds that "[s]eparation occurs at the separator [and] [t]hus, one skilled in
the art would understand that [Whiting's] turbulent flow would be desired
until the unit where separation occurs" (Ans. 2). Based on this finding, the
Examiner determines that the proposed use of Lean's spiral separator in
Whiting's method would not be contrary to the teachings and stated
principle of Whiting as argued by Appellants (id. at 2-3).
We perceive convincing merit in the Examiner's response to
Appellants' argument. Moreover, we emphasize that Appellants do not
challenge the Examiner's above finding as to how an artisan would interpret
Whiting's teaching regarding turbulence (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed).
For these reasons, Appellants fail to show reversible error in the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
4
Appeal2017-009740
Application 13/456,628
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5