Ex Parte Rummelhoff

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13143023 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
13/143,023 09/28/2011 Carl J0rgen Rummelhoff 699132000200 1335
25227 7590 11/02/2017
MORRTSON fr FOFRSTFR T T P
EXAMINER
1650 TYSONS BOULEVARD KING, BRIAN M
SUITE 400
MCLEAN, VA 22102 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
EOfficeVA @ mofo.com
PatentDocket @ mofo. com
pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL J0RGEN RUMMELHOFF
Appeal 2016-004283
Application 13/143,023
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Carl Jorgen Rummelhoff (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s May 6, 2015 decision (“Non-Final Act.”)
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Hamworthy Oil & Gas Systems AS as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004283
Application 13/143,023
rejecting claims 1, 6, 9, and 17.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “a method and system for storage
and transport of liquefied petroleum gases.” Spec. 1:1—2. Claim 1,
reproduced below from page 11 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for storage and transport of liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) on LPG carriers, in particular two cargoes
of different LPG types on same shipment, having reliquefaction
units in which vaporized gases are condensed and then returned
into at least one cargo tank for the respective LPG cargo type,
the method comprising:
using the reliquefaction units, at a minimum one running,
so as to condense vapor from a first one of the cargo types to
yield a first condensed vapor;
providing only one line connecting the reliquefaction
units and a heat exchanger;
passing the first condensed vapor from the only one line
through the heat exchanger;
simultaneously flowing vapor from a second one of the
two cargo types through the heat exchanger so as to condense
the vapor from the second one to yield a second condensed
vapor by means of heat exchanging with the first condensed
vapor; and
returning the first and second condensed vapors leaving
the heat exchanger back into the respective cargo types.
2 Claims 2—5, 7, 8, 10-16, 18, and 19 are withdrawn. Non-Final Act. 1.
2
Appeal 2016-004283
Application 13/143,023
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the
invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Alleaume (US 3,857,251, issued Dec. 31, 1974) and
Clauson (US 3,011,321, issued Dec. 5, 1961).
ANALYSIS
Written Description
The Examiner finds that the language “providing only one line
connecting the reliquefaction units and a heat exchanger” and “from the only
one line” of claim 1 is not described in the Specification. Non-Final Act. 2.
According to the Examiner, “[t]he drawing itself is contradictory to this
recitation as the drawings [show] for example in Figure 3 two lines (2,4)
from each refrigeration unit which enter [the] heat exchanger.” Id. Thus,
the Examiner reasons, “[i]t can therefore be shown . . . that there are at
minimum three lines (lines 2, 4 and the line that passes through valve 600)
connecting the reliquefaction units to the heat exchanger 500.” Ans. 8.
Continuing, the Examiner states that “as an exclusionary recitation there
must be explicit support in the [Specification.” Non-Final Act. 2. The
Examiner also determines that “the system is built on a loop such that it can
be said that line 1 which connects to the tank [100] which connects to line 5
3
Appeal 2016-004283
Application 13/143,023
is a separate line from lines 2 or 4, which would make this recitation new
matter.” Id.; see also Ans. 8—9. Finally, the Examiner determines that
it is also not clear the configuration of the liquefaction units or
the heat exchanger in a way to make a determination if the lines
themselves are continual through the heat exchange or the
liquefaction units such that for example line 3 and 4 are the
same component or separate components.
Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner make similar findings and determinations
regarding the “the reliquefaction units and the heat exchanger being
connected by only one line” limitation of independent claim 9. Id. at 3.
Appellant traverses, arguing that “the line that has throttle valve 600
connects two reliquefaction units (300 and 400) and a heat exchanger (500).
As shown in the drawing, this is the only one line connecting two
reliquefaction units (300 and 400) and a heat exchanger (500).” Appeal Br.
4—5. Continuing, Appellant explains:
A person skilled in the art would understand that the two lines
coming out of the two reliquefaction units separately are for
combining the two reliquefaction units and that only the line
having throttle valve 600 connects heat exchanger 500 and
reliquefaction units (300 and 400) that are combined by the two
lines coming out of the two reliquefaction units.
Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant also asserts
that “those skilled in the art would understand that line 5 connects heat
exchanger 500 and cargo tank 100 and does not connect heat exchanger 500
and reliquefaction units 300 and 400.” Appeal Br. 6.
In order to comply with the written description requirement, the
Specification “must describe the invention sufficiently to convey to a person
of skill in the art that the [applicant] had possession of the claimed invention
4
Appeal 2016-004283
Application 13/143,023
at the time of the application, i.e., that the [applicant] invented what is
claimed.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Federal Circuit has explained:
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed
subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal
support in the specification for the claim language. The content
of the drawings may also be considered in determining
compliance with the written description requirement.
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).
We are persuaded that Appellant’s Figure 3 provides adequate written
description support for the recitations at issue. As correctly noted by
Appellant, Figure 3 shows only one line—the line having throttle valve
600—entering heat exchanger 500 from reliquefaction units 300, 400. Thus,
there is only one line connecting these components. We are further
persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that lines 2
and 4 connect each reliquefaction unit 300, 400, respectively, to heat
exchanger 500, whereas the claim requires that the recited “one line”
connects both reliquefaction units 300, 400 to heat exchanger 500. In other
words, only the line passing through valve 600 connects reliquefaction units
300, 400 to heat exchanger 500, as called for by claims 1 and 9.
Furthermore, line 5 connects heat exchanger 500 to tank 100, and line 1
connects tank 100 to reliquefaction unit 300, but these lines do not connect
the heat exchanger to the reliquefaction units.
5
Appeal 2016-004283
Application 13/143,023
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 9, and 17 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that the same claim recitations discussed
above also render claims 1 and 9 indefinite. Non-Final Act. 3^4.
Specifically, the Examiner determines that “it is unclear in this way what
would encompass connected to” and, “as there are multiple recited possible
reliquefaction units, it is impossible for there to be only one line connected
to the heat exchanger.” Id. at 3. The Examiner concedes that “‘connects’
means a fluid path is formed between the reliquefaction units and the heat
exchanger,” but determines that “[t]he term ‘connects’ is a very broad term
and by adding the clarifier ‘only one’ it renders the claim indefinite as it is
unclear what is now required for the connection to occur.” Ans. 10.
Appellant traverses, arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art, “after
reviewing FIG. 3 and corresponding disclosure of the [Specification, would
understand the meaning of the limitation that the only one line connects the
reliquefaction units and a heat exchanger,” and that “the limitation is
understood based on the plain meaning of the terms, including the term
‘connect.’” Appeal Br. 7.
A claim is indefinite when it contains language that is “ambiguous,
vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining
the claimed invention.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
2014); see also In re McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566,
*5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential). The indefmiteness determination
6
Appeal 2016-004283
Application 13/143,023
is “based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
entire written description and developing prosecution history.” Packard,
751 F.3d at 1312.
For reasons similar to those discussed above, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments. We agree that “connecting” and “connected” are
used in accordance with their ordinary and customary meanings, and that
one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the terms as used in
the claims. Additionally, contrary to the Examiner’s conclusory
determination, it is not impossible for “only one line” to connect the heat
exchanger and the reliquefaction units. See, e.g., Spec. Fig. 3. Rather, one
of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claims to allow only one
connection between the reliquefaction units 300, 400 and heat exchanger
600, such as the line that passes through valve 600. See id. Such an
interpretation precludes, for example, a first line connecting a first
reliquefaction unit and the heat exchanger, and a second, separate line
connecting a second reliquefaction unit and the heat exchanger. This
interpretation also precludes a second line, such as a return line, connecting
the heat exchanger and the reliquefaction units.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 9, and 17 as being indefinite.
Obviousness
The Examiner finds that Alleaume discloses a method for storage and
transport of liquefied petroleum gas substantially as recited in independent
claim 1 including, inter alia, a reliquefaction unit (cryogenic distillation or
7
Appeal 2016-004283
Application 13/143,023
fractioning column 5)3 having only one connection to a heat exchanger (coil
27 of re-boiler drum 6). Non-Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 11—12. The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to
use multiple reliquefaction units, determining that such duplication of
essential working parts would entail only routine skill. Non-Final Act. 5.
The Examiner relies on Clauson to disclose the storage and transportation of
two different liquefied petroleum gases, and reasons that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill “to combine the invention of Alleaume with
that of [Clauson] to have two gases being transported are liquefied
petroleum gas on carriers so that both butane and propane can be transported
together as liquids.” Id. at 6. The Examiner rejects independent claim 9 in a
similar manner. Id. at 6—7.
Appellant traverses, arguing that “Alleaume’s cryogenic distillation
column 5, which the Examiner equates to the claimed reliquefaction units,
and Alleaume’s reboiler drum 6, which the Examiner equates to the claimed
heat exchanger, are connected by two lines, i.e., supply conduit 7 and return
conduit 9.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree that both of
Alleaume’s conduits 7, 9 connect column 5 and drum 6, and, thus, they are
not connected by “only one line” as the term is interpreted above, and, thus,
as required by each of independent claims 1 and 9. The Examiner’s use of
Clauson does not remedy this deficiency. See Non-Final Act. 5—7.
3 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of Alleaume.
8
Appeal 2016-004283
Application 13/143,023
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 9, and 17 as being unpatentable over
Alleaume and Clauson.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6, 9, and 17 is reversed.
REVERSED
9