Ex Parte Lean et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2018

13443231 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/443,231 04/10/2012
61962 7590 06/05/2018
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.
20080169USDIV-XER2195US02 4208
EXAMINER
KEYWORTH, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2018 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, DAVID K. FORK, JEONGGI SEO,
JOHNS. FITCH, andARMINR. VOLKEL 1
Appeal2017-007594
Application 13/443,231
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BRIAND. RANGE, and MICHAEL G.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of sole independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Lean (US 2008/0128331 Al, published June 5, 2008) in
view of Wexler (US 6,416,993 Bl, issued July 9, 2002) and Palmer (US
2005/0194322 Al, published Sept. 8, 2005) and of remaining dependent
claims 2-12 as unpatentable over these references alone or in combination
1 Palo Alto Research Center Inc. is identified as the real party in interest
(App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2017-007594
Application 13/443,231
with additional prior art references. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a method for algae concentration comprising
establishing a flow of fluid containing algae in a curved channel whereby the
algae flows through the channel in an asymmetric manner such that fluid
with concentrated algae outputs through a first outlet and the remaining fluid
outputs through a second outlet, wherein establishing the flow of fluid in the
curved channel includes maintaining a constant velocity of the fluid by
monitoring a condition such as flow rate and actuating an actuator based on
the monitored condition to maintain the constant velocity (claim 1 ).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method for continuous flow membrane-less algae
concentration and dewatering of algae from a fluid, the method
compnsmg:
receiving at least a portion of the fluid containing the
algae at an inlet;
establishing a flow of the fluid in a curved channel
wherein the algae flow in a band through the curved channel in
an asymmetric manner;
outputting the fluid with concentrated algae within which
the band flows through a first outlet of the curved channel; and,
outputting the remaining fluid through a second outlet of
the curved channel;
wherein establishing the flow of fluid in the curved
channel includes maintaining a constant velocity of the fluid
2
Appeal2017-007594
Application 13/443,231
within the curved channel by monitoring a condition of the flow
of fluid through the curved channel including at least one of
pressure, bandwidth, flow rate, temperature or viscosity, and
actuating at least one actuator based at least in part on the
monitored condition to maintain the constant velocity of the
fluid.
Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
dependent claims 2-12 (App. Br. 3-7). Therefore, these dependent claims
will stand or fall with their parent independent claim 1.
We sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lean's method of
concentration/separation using a curved channel does not include
maintaining a constant velocity by monitoring a condition such as flow rate
and actuating an actuator based on the monitored condition (Final Action 3).
However, the Examiner finds that Palmer teaches a method of separation
wherein a condition such as flow rate is monitored and an actuator (e.g., a
pump) is actuated in response to the monitored condition in order to
optimize separation efficiency (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to monitor, for example, fluid flow rate in the curved
channel of Lean and to adjust an actuator based on such monitoring in order
to maintain constant velocity in view of Palmer (id.).
3
Appeal2017-007594
Application 13/443,231
Appellants argue that Palmer adjusts flow rate "to ensure clean water
exits the tank ... [rather than] to maintain a constant velocity of the fluid in
the tank" (App. Br. 6).
In response, the Examiner points out that the rejection is based on
Lean in combination with Palmer and that Lean's "Table of Parameters for
High Volume Sample Processing with Spiral Concentrator" discloses a
constant velocity for each of several different processing times and flow
rates (Ans. 2). The Examiner then explains that it would have been obvious
to effectuate Lean's disclosed constant velocity for a particular processing
time and flow rate by adjusting an actuator as taught by Palmer in order to
achieve the particular flow rate and the constant velocity associated
therewith (id. at 2-3).
Appellants reply by arguing that Lean's Table does not positively
recite maintaining a constant velocity as claimed but instead "merely sets
forth various operational parameters" (Reply Br. 3).
Appellants' unembellished argument does not show error in the
Examiner's finding that the operational parameters of the Table include a
velocity which is constant for each of the various processing times and flow
rates disclosed in the Table. For example, the first set of operational
parameters listed in the Table includes a single velocity value of 5.25 emfs
for a processing time of 16 minutes and a flow rate of 62 mL/minute (Lean
(p. 5) Table). Appellants do not explain why this seemingly-constant
velocity, in fact, would not be constant throughout the processing time of 16
minutes.
4
Appeal2017-007594
Application 13/443,231
Appellants also argue that Palmer's system differs from that of Lean
and their claimed invention (App. Br. 3, 6).
However, Appellants fail to explain with any reasonable specificity
why it would not have been obvious to obtain a constant velocity as
disclosed in Lean's Table by adjusting an actuator to achieve the flow rate
associated with that velocity in view of Palmer's teaching of achieving a
desired flow rate by adjusting an actuator.
In summary, Appellants' arguments do not show reversible error in
the § 103 rejections under review.
CONCLUSION
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5