Houston, Kelly K.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

2019004593 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2020)

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.
14/671,366 03/27/2015 Kelly K. Houston 6854-006 7041
24112 7590 06/30/2020
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
FIORELLO, BENJAMIN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3678
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 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 KELLY K. HOUSTON
Appeal 2019-004593
Application 14/671,366
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 14–25. Claims 3, 6,
7, and 10–13 were canceled during prosecution. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Aerosolization Equity Investments, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004593
Application 14/671,366
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to a system and process for applying
covering or penetrating material to waste such as coal ash, mined products
and various forms of contamination.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of aerosolizing an alternative daily covering
composition and applying the alternative daily covering
composition to a selected land area comprising:
directing water to an aerosolization system that includes a
turbine and a turbine housing;
driving the turbine and generating a system of air that
moves through the turbine housing;
pumping the water under pressure to a series of nozzles
associated with the aerosolization system;
mixing the alternative daily covering composition with the
water to form a water alternative daily covering composition
mixture before the water is emitted from the nozzles;
entraining the water-alternative daily covering
composition mixture in the system of air by pumping the water-
alternative daily covering composition mixture to and through
the nozzles and into the system of air generated by the turbine
and passing through the turbine housing to form a water-
alternative daily covering composition-air mixture;
aerosolizing the water-alternative daily covering
composition-air mixture and directing the aerosolized water--
alternative daily covering composition-air mixture from the
turbine housing through the air and towards the selected land area
where at least a portion of the alternative daily covering
composition falls out of the mixture onto the selected land area;
and
whereby by entraining the water-alternative daily covering
composition mixture in the system of air, the system of air carries
the water-alternative daily covering composition mixture to the
selected land area.
Appeal 2019-004593
Application 14/671,366
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Marsh US 2005/0220542 A1 Oct. 6, 2005
Deal, Jr. US 7,585,135 B1 Sept. 8, 2009
Thakur WO 01/77027 A1 Oct. 18, 2001

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–21, and 23–25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh and Thakur. Final Act. 4.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Marsh, Thakur, and Deal, Jr.. Final Act. 6.

OPINION
Obviousness
All of the Examiner’s rejections rely on the combination of Marsh and
Thakur. According to the Examiner, Marsh generally teaches applying an
alternative daily covering, while Thakur is relied upon for teaching the
specific details of the aerosolization system, including a turbine and air
system, and using a plurality of nozzles for aerosolization. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner concludes obviousness by stating that one of skill in the art
would have combined the two references “in order to allow multiple
nozzle[s] to be utilized to efficiently spray the composition over the
landfill.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues that “[t]he [E]xaminer’s combination requires the
application of [Thakur’s] evaporation system for applying Marsh’s
alternative daily covering composition” and that Thakur “filters out solids
Appeal 2019-004593
Application 14/671,366
4
down to 1 micron.” Reply Br. 5. Appellant then correctly points out that
“[t]his means that the cellulose or the wood pulp fibers that make up critical
constituents of the alternative daily covering composition [are] removed.”
Id. We agree with Appellant that “[t]his is powerful evidence that
[Thakur’s] evaporation system would not work with Marsh’s alternative
daily covering composition.” Id. Because Thakur’s system would appear to
be incompatible with spraying an alternative daily covering composition and
the Examiner has not explained how this obstacle would be overcome, we do
not sustain the rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 14–25 is
reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
9, 14–21,
23–25
103 Marsh, Thakur 1, 2, 4, 5,
8, 9, 14–
21, 23–25
22 103 Marsh, Thakur, Deal,
Jr.
22
Overall
Outcome:
1, 2, 4, 5,
8, 9, 14–25

REVERSED