Ex Parte Zikeli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2018

14389062 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/389,062 09/29/2014 Stefan Zikeli
24978 7590 11/21/2018
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD
300 S. WACKER DR.
SUITE 2500
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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.
4331.118323 1026
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2018 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):
ptomail@ gbclaw. net
docket@gbclaw.net
verify@gbclaw.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEP AN ZIKELI and FRIEDRICH ECKER
Appeal2018-002168
Application 14/389,062 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the invention relates "to methods and
apparatus[ es] for chemical reactions in heated reactors at negative pressure."
1 According to Appellants, the "real party in interest ... is Aurotec GMBH."
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2018-002168
Application 14/389,062
Spec. 1. Claims 1, 13, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Below,
we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims (formatting
added).
1. A method for the pyrolysis or thermolysis of a fluid or
fluidized starting material in a tube bundle reactor including a
plurality of heatable reactor tubes, the method comprising:
feeding the starting material to the tube bundle reactor at
one end by at least one supply line,
wherein the supply line has several pressure reduction
units which enable a positive pressure before the starting material
is introduced into individual reactor tubes of the tube bundle
reactor and a negative pressure inside the reactor tubes,
wherein the pressure reduction units are each associated
with one of the reactor tubes and separately supply the reactor
tubes, and control a substantially equal inflow of the starting
material into individual reactor tubes and the reactor tubes are
heated to a decomposition temperature of the starting material in
at least a primary section of the reactor tubes, in which the
starting material is pyrolyzed or thermolyzed and a pyrolysis or
thermolysis product is obtained.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12-15, 17, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Shimazu et al.
(US 2002/0031690 Al, pub. Mar. 14, 2002) (hereinafter
"Shimazu"), Teles et al. (US 2012/0157719 Al, pub. June 21,
2012) (hereinafter "Teles"), and Robinson (US 4,224,298, iss.
Sept. 23, 1980) (hereinafter "Robinson");
II. Claims 2, 9, 16, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Shimazu, Teles, Robinson, and
2
Appeal2018-002168
Application 14/389,062
Cresswell et al. (US 5,324,904, iss. June 28, 1994) (hereinafter
"Cresswell");
III. Claims 8, 11, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shimazu, Teles, Robinson, and Oehsen et al.
(US 4,693,877, iss. Sept. 15, 1987) (hereinafter "Oehsen");
IV. Claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oehsen, Teles, and Robinson; and
V. Claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oehsen, Teles, Robinson, and Cresswell.
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
As set forth above, claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that
the supply line has several pressure reduction units which enable
a positive pressure before the starting material is introduced into
individual reactor tubes of the tube bundle reactor and a negative
pressure inside the reactor tubes, wherein the pressure reduction
units are each associated with one of the reactor tubes and
separately supply the reactor tubes.
Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is in
error because, contrary to the Examiner's finding (see, e.g., Answer 2),
"Teles does not discl[ os ]e pressure reduction units or capillaries that reduce
the pressure of a starting material introduced into each of the tubes 312, ...
[and] Teles [does not] disclose or suggest the function of ... reducing the
pressure of the flow into the tubes." Appeal Br. 10. Based on our review of
the record, the Examiner does not support adequately that Teles discloses the
claimed pressure reduction units.
According to the Examiner,
3
Appeal2018-002168
Application 14/389,062
Teles . . . shows or teaches . . . the claimed pressure reduction
units with the channels formed in ... plate 31 [3]a having
narrower diameters/sections than the diameter/cross section of
the tubes (para[graph] [O 118]), and as Teles discloses ... the
channels/capillaries each associated with the reactor tubes (312),
Teles is deemed to meet the claimed pressure reduction units
having the capillary/narrower diameters that are provided with
the reactor tubes ( 5 5) as claimed.
Answer 7. Based on our review of the cited portion of Teles, it is not clear
that (using the Examiner's nomenclature) the channels in plate 313a enable
i) a positive pressure before material is introduced into individual reactor
tubes 55, and ii) a negative pressure inside reactor tubes 55, commensurate
with claim 1. See Teles ,r 118. For example, this portion of Teles states, in
relevant part,
[t]he second section 313a of the tube plate has channels [each]
with a cross section which is less than the internal cross section
of the tubes. As a result, the second section 313a too, like ...
homogenizing plate 324 too, forms a backup action for the
incoming reaction mixture, and forms a kind of restrictor for the
tubes of the tube bundle.
Id. (bold omitted). This section does not discuss anything about pressures,
or changes in pressure, and, therefore, it is unclear that the described
"form[ing] a backup action" or "form[ing] a kind of restrictor" results in any
pressure change.
To the extent that the Examiner relies on Robinson to disclose the
pressure reduction units (see, e.g., Answer 2-3), for reasons similar to those
discussed above, we agree with Appellants that this is erroneous ( Appeal Br.
11-12). More specifically, we agree with Appellants that
[although] Robinson discloses a bundle of tubes, [Robinson] fails
to disclose a pressure control, such as a pressure reduction unit,
individually associated with each of the tubes for controlling the
4
Appeal2018-002168
Application 14/389,062
pressure in the tubes. Instead, Robinson discloses that the flow
rate and pressure of the inlet hydrocarbon feedstock are
controlled by a single control valve 42 ([ c ]ol[ unm] 5,
lines 25-26), while the flow of the superheated steam is
controlled by a separate valve 43. The valves 42 and 43 lead
directly into a common cavity (F[igure] 2, p[age] 5, lines 25-32).
As such, the pressure control in Robinson for the feedstock/feed
material is in form of a common or shared pressure control
( control valve 42) for all of the tubes.
Appeal Br. 11.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 13, and dependent
claims 3-7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 25, and 26 that depend from claims 1 and 13,
which the Examiner rejects with claim 1.
Re;ections II and III
Claims 2, 8, 9, 11, 16, 22-24, and 27 depend from claims 1 and 13.
Inasmuch as the Examiner does not rely on any of Creswell or Oehsen to
remedy the above-discussed deficiency in the independent claims' rejection,
we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 8, 9, 11, 16, 22-24,
and 27.
Re;ection IV
Independent claim 18 includes a recitation similar to that discussed
above for claim 1. Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claims 1, 18). In the rejection,
the Examiner relies on Teles to disclose a tube bundle reactor having a
plurality of reactor tubes and a pressure reduction unit associated with each
of the reactor tubes. Answer 5. For reasons similar to those discussed
above, the Examiner does not support adequately that Teles discloses the
claimed pressure reduction units. Further, to the extent that the Examiner
5
Appeal2018-002168
Application 14/389,062
relies on Robinson to disclose the pressure reduction units (see id.), as
claimed, such a reliance would be in error for reasons similar to those
discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 18, or claim 19 that
depends from claim 18 and which the Examiner rejects with the independent
claim.
Reiection V
Claims 20 and 21 depend from independent claim 18. Inasmuch as
the Examiner does not rely on Creswell to remedy the above-discussed
deficiency in the independent claim's rejection, we do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 20 and 21.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-27.
REVERSED
6