Ex Parte Rop

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13263888 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
13/263,888 10/21/2011 Peter Simon Rop 2009P24089WOUS 1748
28524 7590 10/03/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
LIN, KO-WEI
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER SIMON ROP1
Appeal 2016-003074
Application 13/263,888
Technology Center 3700
Before RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Peter Simon Rop (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is NEM Energy B.V.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003074
Application 13/263,888
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to steam water separators
having vessels that hold a mixture of steam and water. Spec. 12. The steam
output from the steam water separator can be used as an input to a steam
turbine used in generating electricity. Id. 13. Claims 1 and 12 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below.
1. A [sjteam water separator, comprising:
a vessel having a vessel wall delimiting an interior of the
vessel, wherein the vessel is configured to contain steam in a
steam zone and water in a water zone in the interior of the vessel;
at least one inlet for introducing steam, or water, or a
mixture of steam and water, in the vessel;
at least one steam outlet for taking steam out of the vessel;
and
at least one water outlet for taking water out of the vessel;
and
a wetting device configured to wet an inner surface of the
vessel wall in the steam zone with water such that the heat
transfer coefficient between the vessel wall and the interior of the
vessel is the same in the water zone and the steam zone.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art references in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
THE EVIDENCE
Hansen
Egglestone
Gonzalez
US 3,704,693
GB 2 142 420 A
Dec. 5, 1972
Jan. 16, 1985
Dec. 11,2008
Apr. 9, 2009
US 2008/0302314 A1
Wielstra WO 2009/044358 A2
2
Appeal 2016-003074
Application 13/263,888
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hansen and Egglestone.
2. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gonzalez,
Hansen, and Egglestone.
3. Claims 12—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hansen and Egglestone.
4. Claims 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hansen,
Egglestone, and Wielstra.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 requires “a wetting device configured to wet an inner surface
of the vessel wall in the steam zone with water such that the heat transfer
coefficient between the vessel wall and the interior of the vessel is the same
in the water zone and the steam zone.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The
Examiner found that Hansen discloses most of the limitations of claim 1, but
does not disclose the claimed “wetting device.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner
found that Egglestone discloses the claimed wetting device because it
discloses “a spray nozzle that has a wide angle that allows water to be
sprayed onto the vessel wall in the steam zone.” Id. The Examiner
determined that it would have been obvious to modify Hansen by
incorporating Egglestone’s spray nozzle. Id. at 3; see also Ans. 9 (“[Ojnly
the spray nozzle of Egglestone is used to combine with Hansen.”).
Appellant argues that Egglestone fails to disclose that its spray head
23 wets an inner surface of the vessel in the steam zone. Appeal Br. 6—7.
3
Appeal 2016-003074
Application 13/263,888
According to Appellant, Egglestone discloses a spray head intended to direct
water downward, not toward the inner wall of the vessel, so that the water
can contact stripping gas flowing upward. Id. Appellant further contends
that even if one combined Hansen and Egglestone, Egglestone does not
suggest wetting the inner surface of the vessel wall with a spray. Id. at 7;
Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that Hansen’s purpose has nothing to do with
wetting an interior surface of the vessel wall, and instead focuses on
directing water downward to trays rather than the vessel wall. Reply Br. 3.
Based on this teaching, Appellant contends that adding Egglestone’s nozzle
to Hansen would “not lead to wetting of the inner surface of the vessel wall
in Hansen.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding regarding
Egglestone’s nozzle wetting the inner surface of Hansen’s vessel wall lacks
support. Importantly, neither Egglestone nor Hansen discuss or expressly
disclose wetting the inner surface of their respective vessels, and both
disclose directing water downwardly rather than upwardly or horizontally to
the vessel wall. See Egglestone, Fig. 2 (item 23); Hansen, Fig. (item 16).
The Examiner found that it would have been obvious and would only require
routine skill to incorporate a nozzle with a wide spray area such as
Egglestone’s into Hansen. Ans. 9. Even so, adding a downwardly-directed
nozzle having a wide angle to Hansen does not necessarily result in wetting
the inner wall of the vessel as required by claim 1. The Examiner points to
no express disclosure to this effect or evidence supporting a finding of
inherency that suggests such a nozzle must necessarily wet the interior
surface of Hansen’s vessel wall. Because the Examiner fails to support
4
Appeal 2016-003074
Application 13/263,888
adequately the finding that the proposed combination discloses this
limitation, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 12 contains similar limitations and was rejected based on
similar findings, and Appellant argues claims 1 and 12 together without
making any separate arguments with respect to claim 12. See Appeal Br.
14—15 (Claims App.); Final Act. 6—7; Appeal Br. 6—8 (arguing claims 1 and
12 together). Accordingly, the analysis above addresses Appellant’s
arguments regarding claim 12 and we do not sustain the rejection of claim
12 for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
The Examiner rejected claims 2—10 and 13—15, which depend from
claims 1 and 12, respectively, based on the same combination of Hansen and
Egglestone and relying on the same findings discussed above. We,
therefore, do not sustain the rejections of claims 2—10 and 13—15 for the
same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 12. The
Examiner rejected dependent claims 11 and 16 based on combinations of
Hansen and Egglestone in further combination with Gonzalez (for claim 11)
and Wielstra (for claim 16). Final Act. 4—5, 7—8. The Examiner does not
rely on the additional disclosure of Gonzalez or Wielstra in a manner that
addresses the deficiencies noted above with respect to the combination of
Hansen and Egglestone. Id. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 11 and 16 for the same reasons as discussed above with
respect to claims 1 and 12.
5
Appeal 2016-003074
Application 13/263,888
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—16.
REVERSED
6