Ex Parte Zia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2013

11174602 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/174,602 07/06/2005 Jalal Hunain Zia 21500 2156
27182 7590 09/06/2013
PRAXAIR, INC.
LAW DEPARTMENT - M1-04
39 OLD RIDGEBURY ROAD
DANBURY, CT 06810-5113
EXAMINER
PETTITT, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JALAL HUNAIN ZIA, NANCY JEAN LYNCH,
JOHN HENRI ROYAL, THURMAN GORDON,
RICHARD JOHN JIBB, and BARRY ALAN MINBIOLE
____________________

Appeal 2011-009919
Application 11/174,602
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009919
Application 11/174,602

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 9-12 and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

The Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to tank systems for
the containment and the dispensing of cryogenic liquids.” Spec., para.
[0001]. Claim 9 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced
below:
9. A method for operating a cryogenic tank
system comprising:
withdrawing a liquid cryogen stream from a
primary tank, passing the liquid cryogen stream
through a cryocooler and subcooling the liquid
cryogen stream within the cryocooler to produce
subcooled liquid cryogen;
passing a subcooled liquid cryogen stream
composed of the subcooled liquid cryogen from
the cryocooler into an auxiliary tank that is
separate from the cryocooler so that the sub cooled
liquid cryogen collects within the auxiliary tank;
pressurizing the subcooled liquid cryogen
collected within the auxiliary tank to an auxiliary
tank pressure;
passing a pressurized liquid cryogen stream,
composed of the subcooled liquid cryogen, from
the auxiliary tank into a location of the primary
tank having a primary tank pressure and under
impetus of the auxiliary tank pressure; and
the auxiliary tank pressure decreasing as the
pressurized liquid cryogen stream is passed from
Appeal 2011-009919
Application 11/174,602

3
the auxiliary tank into the primary tank such that
when the auxiliary tank pressure is below the
primary tank pressure, flow of the pressurized
liquid cryogen stream ceases and the liquid
cryogen is passed from the primary tank to the
cryocooler and the subcooled liquid cryogen
stream is in turn passed to the auxiliary tank.

Evidence Relied Upon
Hansen
Tyree
US 2,964,918
US 5,934,095
Dec. 20, 1960
Aug. 10, 1999

The Rejections
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
I. Claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tyree.
II. Claims 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tyree and Hansen.

OPINION
I. Anticipation by Tyree
Claim 9
The Examiner’s determination that Tyree discloses the method of
claim 9 includes a finding that Tyree discloses a cryocooler (evaporator 78
and compressor 79), and a finding that Tyree discloses an auxiliary tank
(batch pressure transfer system, an alternative embodiment of pump 84) that
passes a pressurized liquid cryogen stream (in line 85) from that auxiliary
tank (of the batch pressure transfer system) to the primary tank (inner vessel
11'). Ans. 3-4 (citing Tyree, col. 10, ll. 8-14).
Appeal 2011-009919
Application 11/174,602

4
Appellants’ arguments are prefaced by a description of the operation
of Tyree’s system that includes reference to pump 84. Br. 8-9. The
Examiner did not rely upon Tyree’s pump 84 in the rejection of claim 9.
Ans. 3-4. Rather, the Examiner relied upon Tyree’s batch pressure transfer
system, an alternative embodiment of pump 84, as corresponding to the
claimed auxiliary tank. Ans. 4, 7; see Tyree, col. 10, ll. 8-12. The failure to
address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner runs throughout
Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants make several arguments that Tyree’s evaporator 78 does
not correspond to the claimed auxiliary tank. Specifically, Appellants argue
that Tyree does not disclose passing a pressurized liquid cryogen stream
from the auxiliary tank into the primary tank as claimed because the flow of
cryogen to and from evaporator tank 78 is controlled by level controllers 82a
and 82b. Br. 9. Appellants also argue that Tyree’s tank 78 is not separate
from the cryocooler. Br. 10. Additionally, Appellants argue that Tyree does
not disclose pressurizing the subcooled liquid cryogen collected within the
auxiliary tank to an auxiliary tank pressure as claimed, because Tyree’s
evaporator tank 78 is never appreciably pressurized. Br. 10. This line of
argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner interpreted that Tyree’s
batch pressure transfer system corresponds as the claimed auxiliary tank, not
evaporator 78. Ans. 4, 7.
Two other arguments regarding evaporator 78 merit further analysis.
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding that Tyree
discloses passing subcooled liquid cryogen from the bottom of tank 78 into
an auxiliary tank (batch pressurization transfer system) is incorrect because
Tyree discloses that cold vapor is passed from a condenser 36’ to tank 78.
Appeal 2011-009919
Application 11/174,602

5
Br. 10. This argument is based upon an erroneous factual premise.
Specifically, Tyree does not disclose passing cold vapor from condenser 36’
to evaporator 78. Tyree, fig. 2. More importantly, this argument is
nonresponsive because the Examiner did not find that Tyree discloses that
vapor from condenser 36’ is passed to tank 78. Rather, the Examiner found
that Tyree discloses that CO2 vapor from condenser 36’ is used by
(transferred to) the batch transfer pressurization system. Ans. 6, 12; see also
Tyree, col. 10, ll. 8-11.
Second, Appellants argue that Tyree does not disclose passing a
subcooled liquid cryogen stream from a cryocooler into an auxiliary tank as
claimed because Tyree’s evaporator tank 78 performs evaporative cooling.
Br. 9. Tyree’s compressor 79 removes vapor from evaporator 78, causing
evaporative cooling of the liquid CO2 in evaporator 78. Tyree, col. 9, ll. 60-
63. However, the fact that Tyree’s cryocooler (compressor 79 and
evaporator 78) performs evaporative cooling does not demonstrate that
Tyree does not disclose passing a subcooled liquid cryogen stream from a
cryocooler (compressor 79 and evaporator 78) into an auxiliary tank (batch
pressure transfer system). See Ans. 3-4.
As such, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the rejection of
claim 9.
Regarding claims 10-12, Appellants merely recite what the claim calls
for and repeat the arguments used for claim 9. Br. 11-12. Our analysis of
claim 9, supra, applies equally well to these claims.

Appeal 2011-009919
Application 11/174,602

6
II. Obviousness over Tyree and Hansen
Claim 10
Appellants argue that claim 10 depends from claim 1 and is allowable
on the same basis as claim 1. Br. 13. We presume Appellant meant claim 9,
not claim 1, because claim 10 depends from claim 9. Such arguments are
unconvincing for the reasons given in the analysis of claim 9 as anticipated
by Tyree, supra.
Appellants argue that modifying Tyree so that liquid is pressurized in
the auxiliary tank “is not an obvious modification of Tyree given that the
rise in pressure within the evaporation tank 78 would raise the temperature
of the cryogen.” Br. 13. Such argument is not responsive because the
Examiner relied upon Tyree’s batch pressurization transfer system as
corresponding to the claimed auxiliary tank, not evaporator 78. Ans. 3-4, 7-
9.
As such, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the rejection of
claim 10.

Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 9 and recites “wherein some of the
subcooled liquid cryogen passed into the auxiliary tank is vaporized, and the
resulting vapor is passed into the primary tank.”
The Examiner found that Tyree disclosed the method of claim 14
except Tyree does not explicitly state that the subcooled liquid cryogen
collected within the auxiliary tank is vaporized and the passed into the
primary tank. Ans. 6. The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to employ the pressure building tank (container 16) of Hanson in the
Appeal 2011-009919
Application 11/174,602

7
cryogenic system of Tyree for the purpose of pressurizing the batch transfer
system in a simple and well-known manner that avoids additional and longer
piping from condenser 36’. Id.
Appellants present three arguments. First, Appellants repeat the
arguments for claim 9. Br. 13. These arguments are unconvincing for the
reasons given in the analysis of claim 9, supra.
Second, Appellants argue that the configuration of Hansen’s system
would not permit the gas in the pressure building circuit to be passed to
another tank. Br. 13. We agree with the Examiner that the rejection
incorporates Hansen’s pressure building circuit into Tyree’s system and does
not rely upon the remaining configuration of Hansen. Ans. 16-17. As such,
this contention is not persuasive.Third,
Appellants argue that the proposed modification would not have been
obvious because vapor from condenser 36’ is needed to perform evaporative
cooling of tank 78. Br. 14. As explained in the analysis of claim 9, supra,
Tyree’s compressor 79 removes vapor from evaporator 78, causing
evaporative cooling of the liquid CO2 in evaporator 78. Tyree, col. 9, ll. 60-
63. Tyree does not disclose that vapor from condenser 36’ is utilized for
evaporative cooling of the contents of evaporator 78. Further, the Examiner
has not proposed to replace the line from condenser 36’ to evaporator 78.
Instead, the Examiner proposed to replace the line from condenser 36’ to the
batch pressure transfer system. See Ans. 6-7, 16-17.
As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 14.

Appeal 2011-009919
Application 11/174,602

8
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject 9-12 and 14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Klh/rvb