RDP Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2021

2020004865 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 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.
15/601,111 05/22/2017 Richard W. Christy 2017-055 1065
27569 7590 09/22/2021
PAUL AND PAUL
THREE LOGAN SQUARE
1717 ARCH STREET
SUITE 3740
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
PEO, KARA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2021 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):
INFO@PAULANDPAUL.COM
claire@paulandpaul.com
fpanna@paulandpaul.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD W. CHRISTY and MICHAEL QUICI

Appeal 2020-004865
Application 15/601,111
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. §
1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as RDP Technologies Inc.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2020-004865
Application 15/601,111

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A water filtration apparatus for treating a milk of lime
solution (MOLS) that contains water, impurities and grit
particles, comprising:
(a) means for delivering the MOLS to a treatment vessel
having an upper end and lower end in the form of a generally
funnel-shaped structure with a generally vertically disposed
cylindrical-shaped enclosure;
(b) means for creating a turbulence in the treatment
vessel to cause larger grit particles in the MOLS to settle out of
the MOLS and form a bed of larger grit particles in the lower
end of the vessel;
(c) means for continuing the delivery of MOLS through
the vessel and through the bed of large grit particles of clause
(b) to filter out smaller grit particles and impurities from the
MOLS at the lower end of the vessel while creating turbulence
in the vessel so that water from the MOLS that has smaller grit
particles and impurities filtered therefrom rises to the upper end
of the vessel;
(d) means for drawing off the filtered water from the
upper end of the vessel.

Appeal Br. 11, Claims Appendix.
Appellant appeals the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 8–10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Christy (WO 2006/113176 A2,
published October 26, 2006); and claims 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11–15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Christy in view of Bober (US
5,549,820 issued August 27, 1996).
Appeal 2020-004865
Application 15/601,111

3
OPINION2
After review of the respective positions Appellant and the Examiner
provide, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections. We limit our
discussion to independent claim 1 and the Christy reference. The Examiner
relies on the Bober reference only to address limitations of the dependent
claims.
The Examiner finds Christy teaches a water filtration apparatus that is
capable of treating a milk of lime solution containing water, impurities, and
grit particles. The Examiner finds Christy’s Figure 6 teaches a water
filtration apparatus comprising conduit 313, slurry tank 314, mixer 315,
conduit 316, and line 352 in combination that anticipates independent
claim 1. (Final Act. 7–8.) The Examiner finds Christy teaches conduit 313
—capable of delivering MOLS— is a means for delivering fluid to a
treatment vessel 314 —generally funnel-shaped structure— having upper
and lower ends. (Final Act. 7.) The Examiner finds mixer 315 is a means
for creating a turbulence in the treatment vessel 314 which is capable of
causing larger grit particles in the MOLS to settle out of the MOLS and form
a bed of larger grit particles in a lower end of the vessel. (Final Act 7.) The
Examiner further finds conduit 316 is a means for continuing the delivery of
MOLS through the vessel and through the bed of large grit particles. The
Examiner finds the large grit particles are capable of filtering out smaller grit
particles and impurities from the MOLS at the lower end of the vessel while
creating turbulence in the vessel. (Final Act. 7–8.) The Examiner finds line

2 The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appears in the Final
Office Action mailed July 8, 2019 (“Final Act.”). (Final Act. 7–14)
Appeal 2020-004865
Application 15/601,111

4
352 is a means for drawing off the filtered water from the upper end of the
vessel. (Final Act. 8.)
We determine the Examiner has not established adequately that
Christy teaches an apparatus comprising a means for continued delivery of
MOLS to the vessel through a bed of large grit particles that causes filtering
out smaller grit particles and impurities from the MOLS at the lower end of
the vessel while creating turbulence in the vessel so that the filtered water
rises to the upper end of the vessel for removal as required by independent
claim 1. Application Figure 1 depicting a water filtration apparatus is
reproduced below:

Application Figure 1 depicts a schematic view of the inventive
apparatus wherein MOLS is delivered to inlet 12 of conduit 13, and enters
vessel 14. Vessel 14 has a frusto-conical or funnel-shaped configuration 15,
wherein vessel lower end 16 has a small diameter compared with larger
Appeal 2020-004865
Application 15/601,111

5
diameter 17 at the vessel’s upper end. The MOLS enters through line 13
within cylindrical enclosure 22 where it impinges against baffle plates 23, 26
which creates a turbulence causing the larger grit particles from the MOLS
to filter out other smaller grit particles and other impurities. The water at
upper end 31 of funnel-shaped portion 15 is substantially free of grit
particles and impurities and passes over the upper end of cylindrical
enclosure 22 ultimately exiting through ports 34. (Spec. 4–5.)
The Examiner relies on Christy Figure 6 as providing an anticipatory
disclosure. Christy Figure 6 depicting a water filtration apparatus is
reproduced below with annotations:

Christy Figure 6 depicts a water filtration apparatus comprising
conduit 313 for delivery of MOLS to generally funnel-shaped slurry tank
Appeal 2020-004865
Application 15/601,111

6
314; mixer 315 for creating turbulence within slurry tank 314; conduit 316
for withdrawal of fluid from slurry tank 314; and line 352 for drawing off
the filtered water from the upper end of slurry tank 314.
Christy fails to disclose the structure that provides for delivery of
MOLS to the vessel and through a bed of large grit particles. The Examiner
relies on conduit 316 as the means for continuing the delivery of MOLS to
the vessel and through a bed of large grit particles. Contrary to the
Examiner’s finding, the MOLS solution in the Christy apparatus travels from
conduit 316 to grit separation device 323 wherein the overflow MOLS from
grit classifier 323 via line 340, recirculates back into the top of slurry tank
314. Christy does not disclose the recirculated MOLS creates turbulence and
filtering as required by the claimed invention.
Bober does not cure the differences between independent claim 1 and
Christy discussed above.
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8–10 102(b) Christy 1, 2, 8–10
3, 4, 6, 7,
11–15
103(a) Christy, Bober 3, 4, 6, 7,
11–15
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–15

REVERSED