Ex Parte Peltier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2014

12331621 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte STEPHANE PELTIER, YVES HARDY,
DENIS COTE, and GILLES POULIN
________________

Appeal 2012-009477
Application 12/331,621
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7‒9. Br. 1, 3. Claims 3‒6 have been canceled.
Br. 3, 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a hybrid erection method for
fabricating a cold box[], involving using components that are prefabricated
Appeal 2012-009477
Application 12/331,621

2

in a shop, and components that are field erected.” Spec. 1:7‒9. Independent
method claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below and is
illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. A hybrid method of erecting a cold box in the field
utilizing prefabricated and field erected components, said
method comprising the following steps:
a. anchoring at least one distillation column to a
foundation in a substantially vertical orientation;
b. anchoring a pipe rack module to said foundation in
a substantially vertical orientation, wherein said pipe rack
module is in close proximity to said at least one
distillation column;
c. attaching interconnecting piping between said pipe
rack module and said at least one distillation column;
d. anchoring at least four corner beams to the edge of
said foundation in a substantially vertical orientation;
e. attaching prefabricated panels with bracing to said
corner beams, to form an enclosure around said distillation
column and piping; and
f. attaching a roof to said enclosure.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Blomeley US 2,955,686 Oct. 11, 1960
Terlesky US 4,041,722 Aug. 16, 1977

THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, and 7‒9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Terlesky and Blomeley. Ans. 5.
ANALYSIS
Sole method claim 1 includes the limitation of “anchoring at least one
distillation column to a foundation in a substantially vertical orientation.”
(emphasis added). The references relied upon (i.e., Terlesky and Blomeley)
both disclose a storage tank. Terlesky Abstract and Blomeley 1:14‒18. The
Appeal 2012-009477
Application 12/331,621

3

Examiner acknowledges that “Terlesky et al. in view of Blomeley et al. do
not disclose the column is a distillation column.” Ans. 7. However, the
Examiner finds that “the column of Terlesky et al. is capable of being used
as a distillation column.” Ans. 7, 9. Appellants disagree contending that
“[t]he examiner repeatedly makes note that a tank that is expressly stated to
be used to store LPG is the same as a distillation column.” Br. 11.
“Applicants respectfully point out that there are a great many difference[s]
between a distillation column and a tank.” Br. 11.
Appellants do not expressly define the claim term “distillation
column,” but Appellants’ Specification provides guidance to the effect that
“[i]t is typical for the cryogenic distillation columns and all of the associated
equipment (heat exchangers, cryogenic pumps, cryogenic valves, connecting
pipes, etc.)” to be used “for the separation of gases.” Spec. 1:13‒19. Hence,
one skilled in the art reading Appellants’ Specification would understand
that the claimed “distillation column” is more than a storage tank, and the
Examiner does not plausibly indicate how a storage tank “is capable of being
used as a distillation column” as this term would be understood.
In short, the Examiner finds that the term “distillation” is an intended
use of the term “column.” Ans. 7. This is how the Examiner explains that
“the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does
not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying
the claimed structural limitations.” Ans. 7. We are not in agreement with
the Examiner that the term “distillation” is indicative of an intended use of
the term “column” nor are we in agreement with the Examiner that a storage
tank satisfies the structural limitations of a distillation column (and
Appeal 2012-009477
Application 12/331,621

4

especially one employing the equipment described in Appellants’
Specification).
We also understand the Examiner to find that one skilled in the art “is
capable of using a known column, such as a distillation column” within “the
cold box of Terlesky et al. in view of Blomeley et al. since it would yield the
predictable result of a reinforced and insulated column within the cold box.”
Ans. 7, 9. However, “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Without addressing the other arguments raised by Appellants, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7‒9 as being
unpatentable over Terlesky and Blomeley.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7‒9 are reversed.

REVERSED

Ssc