Ex Parte STRYBOS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2018

14753951 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/753,951 06/29/2015 Ronald STRYBOS
40582 7590 12/10/2018
American Air Liquide, Inc.
Intellectual Property Department
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
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.
Sl0221 CNT 4832
EXAMINER
MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2018 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):
IP-USOffice@airliquide.com
Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com
J us tin.Murray@airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD STRYBOS
Appeal2018-003239
Application 14/7 53,951
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Decision rejecting claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-003239
Application 14/753,951
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole claim on appeal, and is reproduced below:
1. A method of pressure management in an underground
storage volume, comprising:
storing a compressible fluid in an underground storage
volume,
storing an incompressible fluid in said underground storage
volume,
and performing one of the following:
o removing a portion of said compressible fluid from
said underground storage volume, thereby
producing a net pressure decrease rate (P dee) within
said underground storage volume,
o removing a portion of said compressible fluid from
said underground storage volume, and
concurrently, introducing additional
incompressible fluid into said underground storage
volume, thereby producing a net pressure decrease
rate (P dee) within said underground storage volume,
o introducing additional compressible fluid into said
underground storage volume, and concurrently,
removing a portion of said incompressible fluid
from said underground storage volume, producing
a net pressure decrease rate (P dee) within said
underground storage volume,
wherein P dee is maintained at less than a predetermined
maximum decrease value (PDmax),
wherein said underground storage volume is an underground
salt cavern,
wherein the compressible fluid is hydrogen,
wherein said incompressible fluid is selected from the group
consisting of brine, water, and water slurry.
2
Appeal2018-003239
Application 14/753,951
REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated
by Drnevich (US 2011/0305515 Al, published Dec. 15, 2011).
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated
by GB '808 (GB 1,179,808, published February 4, 1970).
OPINION
Drnevich
The Examiner finds that Drnevich discloses each limitation of
claim 1. Final Act. 2-3. Appellant contends that Drnevich fails to disclose
"adding or removing brine ( or any kind of incompressible fluid) to or from
the working cavern (i.e. while it has the compressible fluid /hydrogen stored
within it) to allow for a decrease in the net pressure." Appeal Br. 5---6.
The Examiner responds that "the steps involving the introduction or
removal of incompressible fluid are recited in the alternative and not actually
required by the claim." Ans. 3. Indeed, the claim requires "performing one
of' (a) "removing a portion of said compressible fluid" without requiring
any further removal or addition of incompressible fluid, (b) "removing a
portion of said compressible fluid ... and ... introducing additional
incompressible fluid," or ( c) "introducing additional compressible fluid ...
and ... removing a portion of said incompressible fluid." The Examiner
finds that Drnevich discloses the first option (i.e., "removing a portion of
said compressible fluid" without requiring any further removal or addition of
incompressible fluid). Final Act. 3. Appellant does not dispute that finding.
Accordingly, Appellant's contention is not persuasive.
Appellant further contends that Drnevich fails to disclose "storing an
incompressible fluid in said underground storage volume." Appeal Br. 6-8.
3
Appeal2018-003239
Application 14/753,951
Appellant acknowledges that Drnevich discloses that "brine (incompressible
fluid) [is] present in the cavern ... from the formation of the cavern."
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contends, however, that "the customary and
ordinary meaning of 'to store' is to place the brine in the cavern and remove
it for use later." Id. at 7 (citing multiple dictionary definitions).
The Examiner explains that "the act of storing does not necessitate
subsequent removal as purported by Appellants." Ans. 5. The Examiner
asserts that "another customary and ordinary definition of 'store' consistent
with the interpretation relied upon in the rejection [is]: 'to place or leave in a
location ... for ... disposal."' Id. (citing "the Merriam-Webster on-line
dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com)"). The Examiner finds that "the
brine of Drnevich is stored (placed or left) in a location (the underground
storage volume) for disposal." Id.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding. Rather, Appellant
responds by alleging, generally, and without evidence, that "[ o ]ne of
ordinary skill in the art of the storage of compressible fluids in underground
salt caverns would obviously interpret the term 'to store' as used and
described above by Appellant and not as presented by the examiner." Reply
Br. 3.
The dispute between the Examiner and Appellant is largely a matter
of claim construction over the meaning of "to store." During examination of
a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
4
Appeal2018-003239
Application 14/753,951
context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not
unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend
the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. In re Am. A cad. of Sci.
Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In the instant case, Appellant offers no explanation, nor do we see,
why the definition of "store" provided by the Examiner is not consistent
with Appellant's Specification. See, e.g., Spec. 4 11. 10-27 (describing
embodiments that do not include removing incompressible fluid). As
Appellant fails to identify error in the Examiner's construction, and does not
dispute the finding applying that construction, we are not apprised of error in
that construction or finding.
For at least these reasons, we are not apprised of error in the rejection
of claim 1 as anticipated by Dmevich.
GB '808
The Examiner also finds that GB '808 discloses each limitation of
claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that GB '808
discloses "storing a compressible fluid [(hydrogen)] in an underground
storage volume." Id. at 3 (citing GB '808, 4:111-114). Appellant contends
that although
GB '808 teaches the storage of "a multi-phase production fluid
comprising at least oil and gas hydrocarbons" . . . [t]here is
absolutely nothing to designate that this hydrocarbon gas has
sufficient ( elemental) hydrogen in its composition to indicate to
one of ordinary skill in the art that this 'jug" was "storing
hydrogen."
Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds that "the claim broadly
5
Appeal2018-003239
Application 14/753,951
recites 'hydrogen' in a compressible form and does not require any
particular degree of purity." Ans. 5.
Although claim 1 does not require any particular degree of purity, it
does require "hydrogen." We construe the claim limitation directed to
"hydrogen" as referring to the chemical element hydrogen, which is
distinguishable from hydrogen that is bound to other elements, such as
carbon, to form a molecule. Although gas hydrocarbon molecules may
contain hydrogen, they are not, themselves, hydrogen. Accordingly, we
agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established sufficiently that
GB '808 discloses storing hydrogen, as required by claim 1.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) over Dmevich.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) over GB '808.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6