Ex Parte Sprouse et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2012

11117911 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2012)

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.
11/117,911 04/29/2005 Kenneth M. Sprouse 67397-049 PUS1 7182
54549 7590 03/19/2012
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KENNETH M. SPROUSE, SHAHRAM FARHANGI,
and DAVID R. MATTHEWS
____________

Appeal 2011-001459
Application 11/117,911
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15, 21-26, 28, and 29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim an injector module 14 for a gasifier 10 comprising a
two-stage slurry splitter 22, a plurality of slurry injection tubes 26, an
injector face plate 30, a plurality of impinging conic elements 98, each
Appeal 2011-001459
Application 11/117,911

2
impinging conic element including a central orifice that receives one of the
slurry injection tubes, and a plurality of annular impinging orifices 34
incorporated into the injector face plate, each annular impinging orifice
surrounding a corresponding slurry injection tube and extending through a
respective one of the plurality of impinging conic elements (claim 1; Figs. 1-
7). Appellants also claim a gasifier having such an injector module (claim
8).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. An injector module for a gasifier, said injector module comprising:

a two-stage slurry splitter;

a plurality of slurry injection tubes extending from the two-stage
slurry splitter;

an injector face plate having the slurry injection tubes extending
therethrough, the injector face plate including a reactant-side plate, a
gasifier-side plate and a coolant passage between the reactant-side plate and
the gasifier-side plate through which a coolant is passed for cooling the
injector face plate;

a plurality of impinging conic elements extending through the
reactant-side plate and the gasifier-side plate, each impinging conic element
including a bore surface defining a central orifice that receives one of the
slurry injection tubes such that the impinging conic element is fitted at an
end of the respective slurry injection tube; and

a plurality of annular impinging orifices incorporated into the injector
face plate, each annular impinging orifice surrounding a corresponding
slurry injection tube and extending through a respective one of the plurality
of impinging conic elements.

The references listed below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Appeal 2011-001459
Application 11/117,911

3
Burkhard 3,793,861 Feb. 26, 1974
Sheer 4,080,550 Mar. 21, 1978
Oberg 4,191,500 Mar. 04, 1980
Szakalos 2004/0005239 Jan. 08, 2004
Sprouse 2004/0050982 Mar. 18, 2004
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, 21, 25, 26, 28, and 291 over Oberg in view of
Sprouse; and

the remaining claims 5, 13, and 22-24 over these references in various
combinations with the other above listed references.

The Examiner acknowledges that the injector module of Oberg
comprises a single stage slurry splitter, rather than the two-stage slurry
splitter required by the independent claims, but concludes that providing the
Oberg module with a two-stage slurry splitter would have been a mere
duplication of parts and therefore obvious (Ans. 4). However, we agree with
Appellants' argument that an artisan would not have found it obvious to
merely duplicate Oberg's splitter as proposed by the Examiner since mere
duplication would result in a downstream splitter too large for the intended
slurry-splitting purpose (App. Br. 4).
In response to this argument, the Examiner modifies the "mere
duplication" position of the rejection by concluding that an artisan would
have not only duplicated Oberg's splitter but also made size adjustments in
order to obtain an effectively functioning two-stage slurry splitter (Ans.
para. bridging 9-10). Appellants convincingly argue that the Examiner's last

1 The Examiner has failed to include claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 in the
statement of this rejection (Ans. 3). Particularly in light of our disposition of
this appeal, the Examiner's failure is harmless.
Appeal 2011-001459
Application 11/117,911

4
mentioned conclusion is unsupported by evidence showing that the proposed
adjustments were known in the prior art and would have been prima facie
obvious (Reply Br. 2).
For these reasons, we cannot sustain any of the § 103 rejections
advanced by the Examiner in this appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

ssl