Gaston GLOCK

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2021

2020003973 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2021)

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.
15/204,602 07/07/2016 Gaston GLOCK BARG-020A 7967
173364 7590 05/21/2021
RAVEN PATENTS, LLC
8835 SW Canyon Lane
Suite 402
Portland, OR 97225
EXAMINER
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2021 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):
anton.skaugset@protonmail.com
office@ravenpatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GASTON GLOCK
____________

Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, LILAN REN, and JANE E. INGLESE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–9 and 11.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies GLOCK ÖKOENERGIE GMBH as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed November 14, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), 4.
2 Non-Final Office Action entered June 21, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), 3.
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims an apparatus for gasifying carbon-containing
material. Appeal Br. 8–10. Claim 4, the sole pending independent claim,
illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows:
4. An apparatus for gasifying carbon-containing material,
comprising:
a gas generator; the gas generator having an upper
region, a middle region, and a lower region; wherein the
carbon-containing material is supplied to the upper region of
the gas generator, oxygen is supplied to the middle region of
the gas generator, and the carbon-containing material is largely
gasified to a product gas in a fixed bed reactor in the lower
region of the gas generator;
a hot gas filter, wherein the hot gas filter receives the
product gas from the gas generator via a product gas line
coupled to a lowermost region of the gas generator and passes
the product gas through a filter assembly to yield a clean gas;
the hot gas filter further including a solids outlet in a bottom
region of the hot gas filter for taking off residual solids
removed from the product gas by the filter assembly; and
a gas line configured to supply oxygen to a middle region
of the hot gas filter between the filter assembly and the solids
outlet, resulting in an additional gasification of residual
constituents of the carbon-containing material present in the
product gas received by the hot gas filter from the gas
generator.

Appeal Br. 32 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

3
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 4–9 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mall3 in view of McIlroy4 in the
Examiner’s Answer entered March 5, 2020 (“Ans.”).
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 4–9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons set forth in the Appeal
and Reply Briefs, and below.
We need address independent claim 4 only, which requires the recited
apparatus for gasifying carbon-containing material to comprise, in part, a gas
line configured to supply oxygen to a middle region of a hot gas filter
between a filter assembly and a solids outlet.
The Examiner finds that Mall discloses an apparatus for gasifying
carbon-containing material having all the elements recited in claim 4,
including a hot gas filter having a filter assembly and solids outlet, except
that Mall does not disclose a gas line configured to supply oxygen to a
middle region of the hot gas filter between the filter assembly and solids
outlet. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Mall Fig. 1). The Examiner finds, however,
that McIlroy discloses “a gasifier/partial oxidation reactor” that includes a
pair of candle filters disposed in filtering vessel 52 for filtering material
outlet from a gasifier, and gas lines 62, 76 “for injecting oxygen” into
filtering vessel 52 “to combust the accumulated carbon located on the candle

3 Mall et al., US 2013/0019528 Al, published January 24, 2013.
4 McIlroy et al., US 6,077,490, issued June 20, 2000.
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

4
filter[s].” Non-Final Act. 3 (citing McIlroy Abstr.; col. 1, ll. 50–67); see
also McIlroy Fig. 4.
In view of these disclosures in McIlroy, the Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art add McIlroy’s
regenerating candle filters to Mall’s apparatus because “[t]wo separators will
remove more particulates than one,” and “modifying Mall in such a way,
where there is a cyclonic separator in addition to a candle filter, would
lessen the load on the downstream particulate removal processes such as the
scrubbers and the downstream filters of Mall.” Ans. 6. The Examiner finds
that some of the oxygen injected through inlet lines 62, 76 of Mall’s
apparatus as so modified by McIlroy “will inherently make its way to the
‘middle region’ of the hot gas filter between the filter assembly and the
solids outlet” as “illustrated by the arrows from Filter A to Filter B in Fig. 4
of McIlroy.” Non-Final Act. 4.
On the record before us, however, for reasons expressed by Appellant
(Appeal Br. 24–30) and discussed below, the Examiner does not establish
that the relied-upon disclosures of Mall and McIlroy would have suggested
an apparatus for gasifying carbon-containing material that includes a gas line
configured to supply oxygen to a middle region of a hot gas filter between a
filter assembly and a solids outlet, as required by claim 4.
Mall discloses system 10 including biomass gasification system 12
integrated with power generation system 14. Mall ¶ 20; Fig. 1. Mall
explains that biomass gasification system 12 gasifies biomass feedstock 16
to produce treated producer gas 18 provided to power generation system 14
as a fuel source for generating power. Mall ¶¶ 20, 21; Fig. 1.
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

5
Mall discloses that system 10 operates by directing biomass feedstock
16 into biomass gasifier 28 where combustion of biomass feedstock 16
occurs in the presence of air 26. Mall ¶ 25; Fig. 1. Mall discloses that first
gas mixture 36 formed in biomass gasifier 28, which includes particulates,
such as dust and char, exits through outlet 38 of biomass gasifier 28. Mall
¶¶ 28, 32; Fig. 1. Mall discloses that outlet 38 directs first gas mixture 36
into cyclone 52 that “removes a substantial portion of particulates 54 that
may be present in the first gas mixture 36 to produce a cycloned gas mixture
56,” which is then directed into scrubbing system 58. Mall ¶ 32; Fig. 1.
Mall discloses that scrubbing system 58 includes first scrubber 60, second
scrubber 62, and chilled water scrubber 64, and Mall explains that each
successive rubber produces a scrubbed gas mixture having a lower
particulate content than that produced by the previous scrubber, such that the
scrubbers each remove particulates from the gas mixture. Mall ¶¶ 33–35;
Fig. 1. Mall discloses that scrubbed gas stream 82 exits scrubbing system 58
and passes through filter system 86 including “one or more filters” for
removing dust from scrubbed gas stream 82 to produce treated producer gas
18, which is provided to power generation system 14. Mall ¶¶ 36, 37; Fig. 1.
As Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 25), one of ordinary skill in the
art reasonably would have understood that Mall’s disclosure of providing
treated producer gas 18 directly from filter system 86 into power generation
system 14 indicates that the particulate level of treated producer gas 18 is
sufficiently low to render the gas suitable for generating power without any
further treatment or filtering. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that Mall’s treated producer gas 18 is sufficiently
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

6
free of particulates to render it suitable for direct use in power generating
equipment.
McIlroy discloses filtering vessel 52 containing candle filter elements
64, 66 for filtering carbon soot particles from syngas. McIlroy col. 1, ll. 12–
15; col. 4, ll. 41–53; Fig. 4.
Although the Examiner proposes adding McIlroy’s filter elements to
Mall’s system because “[t]wo separators will remove more particulates than
one” (Ans. 6), the Examiner does not provide sound technical reasoning
supported by objective evidence establishing that, in view of Mall’s
disclosure of directly using producer gas generated from Mall’s system in
power generation equipment, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably
would have expected that adding additional filter elements to Mall’s system
would be beneficial, or even useful, in Mall’s system. The Examiner also
does not provide reasoning having rational underpinning that explains why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found any reason to “lessen the
load on the downstream particulate removal processes such as the scrubbers
and the downstream filters of Mall” by adding McIlroy’s filter elements to
Mall’s system, particularly when the very purpose of Mall’s scrubbers and
filters is to remove particulates from the treated gas mixture, as discussed
above. Ans. 6.
Simply because Mall’s system could be modified as proposed by the
Examiner, in the absence of reasoning having rational underpinning that
explains why one of ordinary skill in the art actually would have so modified
Mall’s system, the proposed modification would not have been obvious
under section 103, because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan
not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

7
combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
2015); see also In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“The
mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would not have made the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification.”).
Furthermore, even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reason to modify Mall’s system as proposed by the Examiner by adding
McIlroy’s filter elements to the system, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that Mall’s system as so modified would
include a gas line configured to supply oxygen to a middle region of a hot
gas filter between a filter assembly and a solids outlet, as required by claim
4.
We point out initially that the recitation in a claim that a structure is
“configured to” perform a particular function is synonymous with “made to”
or “designed to” perform that function, when the description makes clear
that the recited structure is “designed to” or “constructed to” perform the
recited function. In such circumstances, recitation of a structure “configured
to” perform a function, therefore, requires purposeful structural design in the
prior art—beyond mere capability—of performing the recited function, to
render the recited structure obvious. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that claim language
“configured to” is construed more narrowly than “capable of” and holding
that where claim language including the phrase “adapted to” is to be
construed consistent with “configured to” language it requires that the
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

8
structure must be “designed or configured to accomplish the specified
objective, not simply that [it] can be made to serve that purpose.”).
In the present case, Appellant’s Specification discloses that
Appellant’s apparatus for gasifying carbon-containing material includes gas
generator 1 into which wood chip feed 3 is introduced, and following
combustion of feed 3, “uncombusted portions and ash are drawn off with the
product gas via a line 6 . . . and are introduced into the middle region of a
hot gas filter 2.” Spec. 9, l. 16–10, l. 5; Fig. 2. The Specification discloses
that hot gas filter 2 includes filter candles 7, and explains that product gas
passes from the middle region of hot gas filter 2 into and through filter
candles 7 to the upper region of hot gas filter 2, where the flow arrives as
clean gas and “is taken off via a clean gas line 8.” Spec. 10, ll. 6–11; Fig. 2.
The Specification discloses that outlet 10 for ungasified constituents is
provided in the bottom region of hot gas filter 2. Spec. 10, ll. 16–18; Fig. 2.
The Specification discloses that according to Appellant’s invention,
air is supplied via line 12 into the region of hot gas filter 2 at the lower end
of filter candles 7 so that “in the crude gas region of the hot gas filter 2, there
is a further, very largely complete gasification of those constituents of the
wood that up to this point have not been gasified.” Spec. 10, l. 19–11, l. 2;
Fig. 2. The Specification explains that, consequently, “the remaining,
ungasified fraction of the wood can be reduced substantially to the mineral
ash, with notable consequences both for the environment and in economic
respects.” Spec. 11, ll. 3–5.
The Specification thus discloses that gas line 12 is designed and
constructed to supply oxygen to the middle region of hot gas filter 2 between
filter candles 7 and outlet 10 to advantageously provide for gasification of
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

9
wood constituents in hot gas filter 2 that had not been gasified in gas
generator 1. In view of this disclosure in the Specification, the recitation in
claim 4 of a gas line “configured to” supply oxygen to a middle region of a
hot gas filter between a filter assembly and a solids outlet requires the
recited gas line to be “designed” or “constructed” to supply oxygen to the
recited location of a hot gas filter.
The Examiner incorrectly interprets claim 4 as requiring a gas line
that need only be capable of supplying oxygen to a middle region of a hot
gas filter. Ans. 6–7 (“the phrase ‘a gas line configured to supply oxygen to a
middle region of the hot gas filter between the filter assembly and the solids
outlet’ . . . contains very little structure other than the presence of a gas line
that is capable of sending gas to the hot gas filter”).
As discussed above, McIlroy discloses filtering vessel 52 containing
candle filters 64, 66 for filtering carbon soot particles from syngas. McIlroy
col. 1, ll. 12–15; col. 4, ll. 41–53; Fig. 4. McIlroy discloses supplying
combustion gas alternately to the candle filters to “burn[] oxidizable
particles trapped on each respective filter to clean each filter while the other
filter is filtering the hot unfiltered syngas.” McIlroy col. 1, ll. 60–66. More
specifically, McIlroy discloses introducing “[d]irty syngas” into the bottom
section of filtering vessel 52, and using cyclonic flow pattern 56 in the
vessel’s “separator zone” to separate relatively large soot particles, which
fall to bottom 54 of vessel 52. McIlroy col. 3, ll. 43–47; Fig. 4. McIlroy
discloses introducing a small amount of air 58 through porous metal plate 60
“at the bottom of the vessel,” which creates zone 62 with oxidizing
conditions to burn the soot, generating as much carbon monoxide as
possible. McIlroy col. 3, ll. 47–51; Fig. 4.
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

10
McIlroy discloses cleaning filter 64 while filter 66 is filtering syngas
by introducing air into filter 64 through cylinder 76 of spool valve 70.
McIlroy col. 3, ll. 52–57; Fig. 4. McIlroy explains that the air flowing
through filter 64 “causes the soot on the outside surface of the filter to burn,
again generating as much carbon monoxide as possible.” McIlroy col. 3, ll.
57–59; Fig. 4. McIlroy discloses that “[a]ny pieces of soot that dislodge
from the filter fall into the oxidizing zone 62 at the bottom of the vessel,”
and “[c]ombustion products join the main syngas stream 78.” McIlroy col.
3, ll. 50–62; Fig. 4.
McIlroy thus discloses introducing air 58 through porous metal plate
60 into the very bottom of filtering vessel 52, and introducing air through
cylinder 76 into the top of filter 64 disposed in the upper portion of filtering
vessel 52.
Although the Examiner asserts that “[a]ny of the gas inlets of
Mc[I]lroy can supply oxygen to a middle region of the hot gas filter
[filtering vessel 52]” (Ans. 7), neither porous metal plate 60 in the bottom of
filtering vessel 52 nor cylinder 76 is designed or constructed to introduce air
into the middle region of McIlroy’s filtering vessel 52. Rather, as discussed
above, porous metal plate 60 is designed and constructed to introduce air 58
into the very bottom of filtering vessel 52, and spool valve cylinder 70 is
designed and constructed to introduce air through cylinder 76 into the top of
filter 64, which is disposed in the upper portion of filtering vessel 52. The
Examiner, therefore, does not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish
that Mall’s “inlets” are designed and constructed to introduce air into the
middle region of McIlroy’s filtering vessel 52.
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

11
The Examiner also finds (as discussed above) that some of the oxygen
injected through McIlroy’s cylinder 76 into the top of filter 64 “will
inherently make its way to the ‘middle region’ of the hot gas filter between
the filter assembly and the solids outlet” as “illustrated by the arrows from
Filter A to Filter B in Fig. 4 of Mc[I]lroy.” Non-Final Act. 4. McIlroy,
however, discloses that air flowing through filter 64 “causes the soot on the
outside surface of the filter to burn, again generating as much carbon
monoxide as possible” and “[c]ombustion products join the main syngas
stream 78.” McIlroy col. 3, ll. 50–62; Fig. 4. The arrows shown in
McIlroy’s Figure 4 emanating from filter 64 thus show combustion products
produced when soot on the outside surface of filter 64 is burned, which join
main syngas stream 78. In view of McIlroy’s explicit disclosure that such
combustion products include “as much carbon monoxide as possible,” the
Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that oxygen
is necessarily present in the combustion products, such that McIlroy’s
cylinder 76 is designed and constructed to supply oxygen to a middle region
of McIlroy’s filtering vessel 52. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.,
773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]o rely on inherency to
establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness
analysis[,] the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural
result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.”).
On the record before us, therefore, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that Mall’s system modified as proposed
by the Examiner in view of McIlroy would include a gas line configured to
supply oxygen to a middle region of a hot gas filter between a filter
assembly and a solids outlet, as required by claim 4.
Appeal 2020-003973
Application 15/204,602

12
We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4,
and claims 5–9 and 11, which each depend from claim 4, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
4–9, 11 103 Mall, McIlroy 4–9, 11

REVERSED