Jensen, Thomas Willum. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2020

2019004913 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 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.
13/511,557 08/01/2012 Thomas Willum Jensen Q130805 9194
23373 7590 08/19/2020
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
GADOMSKI, STEFAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2020 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
sughrue@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS WILLUM JENSEN and JOHNNY BONKE
Appeal 2019-004913
Application 13/511,557
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20–24 and 27–39. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We conducted an oral hearing for this case on August 4, 2020.
We AFFIRM.

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 GEA PROCESS
ENGINEERING A/S. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004913
Application 13/511,557
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of monitoring a spray dryer and a
spray dryer comprising one or more infrared cameras. Claim 20, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
20. A method of monitoring a spray dryer part subjected
to the formation of deposits, comprising the steps of:
providing a spray drying chamber, and
associating one or more cameras with the spray drying
chamber, said one or more cameras having a field of view inside
the spray drying chamber, at least one of said one or more
cameras being an infrared camera, and
measuring a temperature of the spray dryer part,
providing a control system, and providing a set value for
the temperature of the spray dryer part, wherein the control
system is associated with an alarm triggered when the
temperature exceeds said set value,
wherein the measuring of the temperature of the spray
dryer part is carried out by measuring a temperature of deposits
of solid material accumulated on the spray dryer part,
wherein the alarm is triggered as a result of deposits
forming in the spray drying chamber and the temperature of the
deposits exceeding the set value for the spray dryer part,
wherein the spray dryer part comprises at least one of the
spray nozzle, a portion of a wall of the spray drying chamber, or
a portion of a fluid bed gas distributor plate.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Christensen US 5,839,207 Nov. 24, 1998
Ray US 2002/0153627 A1 Oct. 24, 2002
Campbell US 2004/0225452 A1 Nov. 11, 2004
Arp US 2012/0057018 A1 Mar. 8, 2012
Miller US 6,229,563 B1 May 8, 2001
Sugiura JP 2001–057642 A Aug. 18, 1999

Appeal 2019-004913
Application 13/511,557
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 20–24 and 27–39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35
U.S.C.112 (pre– AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 7.
Claims 20–23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, and 38 are rejected under pre–
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arp, Mujumdar, and
Campbell. Final Act. 9.
Claim 24 is rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arp, Mujumdar, Campbell, and Christensen. Final Act.
18.
Claims 29, 31, 32, 35 and 36 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arp, Mujumdar, Campbell, and Miller.
Final Act. 19.
Claim 37 is rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arp, Mujumdar, Campbell, Miller, and Sugiura. Final Act.
21.
Claim 39 is rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arp, Mujumdar, Campbell, and Ray. Final Act. 22.
OPINION
Section 112 Rejection
Regarding claims 20 and 33, the Examiner finds that the claim
limitations “measuring a temperature of deposits of solid material
accumulated on the spray dryer part” and “measures a temperature of
deposits of solid material accumulated on a spray dryer part on the spray
dryer” are not supported by the Specification at the time the application was
filed because the Specification uses the word “potentially” and does “not
Appeal 2019-004913
Application 13/511,557
4
support” direct measurement of accumulated deposits of solid material. Final
Act. 7–8; Ans. 4–5.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. We agree with
Appellant that original claim 7, and page 9 of the Specification, provide
sufficient written description support for these claim limitations. For
example, original claim 7, which was filed with the patent application,
recites: “whereby the monitoring is carried out with respect to deposits of
solid material, and the set value for the temperature is the temperature of the
deposits.” In the Answer, the Examiner does not respond to Appellant’s
arguments regarding original claim 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 20–24 and 27–
39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre– AIA), first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.

Section 103 Rejections
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding one skilled in the art
would have recognized the combination of references teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of the pending claims. We refer to, rely on, and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection and
Answer with respect to the § 103 rejections. Ans. 6–9.
Claim 20 recites, inter alia, “measuring a temperature of deposits of
solid material accumulated on the spray dryer part” “wherein the spray dryer
part comprises at least one of the spray nozzle, a portion of a wall of the
spray drying chamber, or a portion of a fluid bed gas distributer plate.”
Appellant argues that Mujumdar does not teach or suggest that the
temperature of deposits of solid material accumulated on a spray dryer part
is to be measured. Appeal Br. 12. Yet, the Examiner does not rely on
Appeal 2019-004913
Application 13/511,557
5
Mujumdar, alone, to teach “measuring of the temperature of the spray dryer
part is carried out by measuring a temperature of deposits of solid material
accumulated on the spray dryer part,” as recited in claim 20. Rather, the
Examiner relies on the combination of Arp and Mujumdar to teach this
element. Ans. 6–7.
In particular, Arp teaches that a “thermal imaging camera 26”
provides an output that is an “electronic representation of the variations of
temperature within the camera’s field of view.” Arp ¶ 61. Arp also
describes how a “thermal imaging camera 86 is arranged to scan the spray
pattern 88 adjacent the exit of the nozzle and thereby obtain a direct measure
of the temperature of the slurry of material as it exits the spray nozzle. Id. at
70 (emphasis added). The Examiner explains that Mujumdar describes
monitoring operations in spray drying for a potential danger of explosion
and fire. Ans. 6. Because the claim recites measuring a temperature of
deposits “on the spray dryer part,” and because the spray dryer party
“comprises at least one of the spray nozzle,” Arp at least suggests measuring
the temperature of something (e.g., deposits) in the field of view of the
camera, including the nozzle. Arp, ¶¶ 61, 70.
Appellant also argues that there would not have been a reasonable
expectation of success in modifying the references in the manner asserted by
the Office. Appeal Br. 14. “By shifting the focus of the infrared camera of
Arp as suggested by the Examiner, it would not have been possible ‘to
determine the rate at which coating material is being deposited onto the
tablets, and to control of the spray pressure and other processing parameters
in response to the data derived from the thermal imaging camera,’ as taught
by Arp.” Id. “As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have made
such a modification of Arp.” Id.
Appeal 2019-004913
Application 13/511,557
6
We are not persuaded by this argument, which is not supported by any
evidence in the record. Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that
the Examiner’s suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art
suffices as an articulated reason with some rational underpinning to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan
at the time of the claimed invention would have combined Arp’s teaching of
a thermal imaging camera that scans and measures it its field of view
including a spray nozzle for a spray drying system (see Arp ¶¶ 61, 70, Fig.
6), with Mujumdar’s teaching of a monitoring for potential fire in spray
drying operations and spontaneous combustion in product deposits (see
Mujumdar pp. 301–302), and Campbell’s teaching of an alarm (Campbell ¶
86).2 See Ans. 6–9 (“With [Arp’s] specifically selected area [i.e., field of
view of a spray nozzle] there would have been a reasonable expectation of
success to monitor the spray nozzle for clogging/deposits and to monitor the
temperature of said clogging/deposits to prevent a fire due to deposit ignition
due to deposit temperature, as taught by Mujumdar.”). Such a combination
would have been within ordinarily skilled artisans’ knowledge when
accounting for the inferences and creative steps that these artisans would
have employed. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” Id. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Because Appellant

2 We note that Appellant does not dispute any of the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Campbell. See Appeal Br. 9–14; Reply Br. 8–10.
Appeal 2019-004913
Application 13/511,557
7
has not demonstrated that the proposed combination would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” the
proposed modification would have been well within the purview of the
ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 20. Because
Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or has
reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
the § 103 rejection of claim 20 above, the remaining pending claims fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 20–24 and 27–39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre– AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement.
We affirm the rejections of claims 20–24 and 27–39 under § 103.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20–24 and
27–39 is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
Appeal 2019-004913
Application 13/511,557
8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
20–24, 27–
39
112 20–24, 27–
39
20–23, 27,
28, 29, 30,
33, 34, 38
103 Arp, Mujumdar,
Campbell
20–23, 27,
28, 29, 30,
33, 34, 38

24 103 Arp, Mujumdar,
Campbell,
Christensen
24
29, 31, 32,
35, 36
103 Arp, Mujumdar,
Campbell, Miller
29, 31, 32,
35, 36

37 103 Arp, Mujumdar,
Campbell, Miller,
Sugiura
37
39 103 Arp, Mujumdar,
Campbell, Ray
39
Overall
Outcome
20–24,
27–39

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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