ATG R&D LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2020

14425019 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 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.
14/425,019 04/14/2015 RICHARD JOSHI 2019P00025WOUS 6955
141329 7590 03/26/2020
Evoqua Water Technologies LLC
Intellectual Property Department
10 Technology Drive
Lowell, MA 01851
EXAMINER
STOFFA, WYATT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2020 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):
CKent@LALaw.com
docketing@LALaw.com
intellectualproperty@evoqua.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD JOSHI
____________

Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–4.2 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies ATG R&D Limited as the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief filed November 11, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) at 1.
2 Final Office Action entered April 26, 2017 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1 and 3 illustrate the subject matter on appeal, and
are reproduced below with contested subject matter italicized:
1. A reactor comprising:

a plurality of mounting holes adapted to be align-able
with the mounting holes of a piping flange;

a substantially rectangular irradiation cavity, the
irradiation cavity having a longitudinal axis that is
parallel to the plurality of mounting holes;

and a radiation source being removably disposed within
the irradiation cavity;

whereby the reactor can be removably secured between
the flanges of an existing piping system.

3. First and second reactors, each comprising:

a plurality of mounting holes adapted to be align-able
with the mounting holes of a piping flange;

a substantially rectangular irradiation cavity, the
irradiation cavity having a longitudinal axis that is
parallel to the plurality of mounting holes;

a radiation source being removably disposed within the
irradiation cavity;

whereby the first and second reactors can be removably
secured to each other, between the flanges of an existing
piping system, wherein the irradiation cavities of the first
and second reactors have a substantially common
longitudinal axis;

further whereby the first and second reactors can be
selectively arranged, relative to each other, in a plurality
Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019

3
of positions around the substantially common
longitudinal axis.

Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–4 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and (2) as anticipated by Abe et al. (US
2013/0062532 Al, published March 14, 2013) in the Examiner’s Answer
entered January 14, 2019 (“Ans.”).3
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and (2) for the reasons set forth in
the Final Action, the Answer, and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the appellant provides for each issue the appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had
failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections”)).

3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) (Final Act. 2–3) in the Answer. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019

4
Appellant presents separate arguments for each of independent claims
1 and 3. Appeal Br. 4–8. We, accordingly, address these claims separately.
Because Appellant does not present arguments directed to the separate
patentability of the claims that depend from independent claims 1 and 3
(claims 2 and 4), the dependent claims stand or fall with the respective
claims from which they depend. Id.; 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 1 and 2
Claim 1 requires the recited reactor to comprise, in part, a
substantially rectangular irradiation cavity, and a radiation source removably
disposed within the irradiation cavity.
Abe discloses ultraviolet irradiation apparatus 200 (reactor) for
sterilizing or disinfecting water. Abe ¶¶ 16, 17. Abe discloses that
ultraviolet irradiation apparatus 200 (reactor) includes water passage body
30, which is “a tubular member” having water inlet side end portion 31a and
water outlet side end portion 31b “in its respective two ends.” Abe ¶¶ 40,
41, 42; Figs. 6 and 7. Abe discloses that water passage body 30 also
includes rectangular portion 30a disposed between water inlet side end
portion 31a and water outlet side end portion 31b, and Abe indicates that the
“cross-sectional external and internal shapes” of rectangular portion 30a “are
rectangular.” Abe ¶ 42; Figs. 6 and 7. Abe discloses that ultraviolet
irradiation tubes 4a, 4b, 4c formed of ultraviolet lamps 7 are disposed within
rectangular portion 30a. Abe ¶¶ 41, 45; Figs. 6 and 7.
Appellant argues that “Abe does not teach a[] [substantially]
rectangular reactor” because Abe discloses that only part of water passage
body 30 has a rectangular shape (rectangular portion 30a), and, therefore,
Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019

5
“by plain definition, Abe cannot teach a substantially rectangular reactor
because only a relatively small part of it is rectangular.” Appeal Br. 5
(citing Abe ¶¶ 40, 41; Fig. 6). Appellant argues that Abe discloses that
water passage body 30 is tubular, and the two end portions (31a, 31b) of
water passage body 30 are shaped like a cylinder. Appeal Br. 5 (citing Abe
¶¶ 42, 44). Appellant argues that “[t]he presence of rectangular portion 30a
in a tubular, cylindrical water passage does not negate the tubular nature of
water passage body 30.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant’s arguments imply, however, that claim 1 requires a
“substantially rectangular reactor,” because Appellant contrasts Abe’s water
passage body 30 with a “substantially rectangular reactor.” Claim 1 does
not recite a “substantially rectangular reactor,” however. Rather, claim 1
recites a reactor comprising a “substantially rectangular irradiation cavity”
within which a radiation source is removably disposed.
We find no definition or limiting description of an “irradiation cavity”
in Appellant’s Specification, and Appellant does not direct us to any such
definition or disclosure. The Specification does describe, however, reactor
1A including irradiation cavity 16A in which radiation source 2A is
disposed, and Figure 5A illustrates such an irradiation cavity. Spec. 6, ll. 1–
14; 7, l. 21–8, l. 4; Figs. 3A and 5A. Consistent with this disclosure in
Appellant’s Specification and drawings, we interpret an “irradiation cavity”
according to its plain and ordinary meaning as a space within a reactor
within which a radiation source is removably disposed.4 In re ICON Health

4 Cavity: an unfilled space within a mass, Merriam-Webster.com (accessed
March 12, 2020), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cavity.
Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019

6
and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (During prosecution
of patent applications, “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the
specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise
apply a broad interpretation.”).
As the Examiner finds, in view of Abe’s disclosure that the “cross-
sectional external and internal shapes” of rectangular portion 30a “are
rectangular,” and disclosure that ultraviolet irradiation tubes 4a, 4b, 4c
formed of ultraviolet lamps 7 (radiation sources) are disposed within
rectangular portion 30a, rectangular portion 30a of Abe’s ultraviolet
irradiation apparatus 200 (reactor) corresponds to a substantially rectangular
space within which a radiation source is removably disposed, or “a
substantially rectangular irradiation cavity,” as recited in claim 1 as we have
interpreted it. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 3–5.
Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s finding that
rectangular portion 30a corresponds to the recited substantially rectangular
irradiation cavity. Instead, Appellant asserts that water passage body 30—
rather than rectangular portion 30a—does not correspond to a “substantially
rectangular reactor,” which claim 1 does not even recite. Appellant’s
arguments, therefore, do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.”).
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and (2) as anticipated by Abe.
Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019

7

Claims 3 and 4
Claim 3 recites first and second reactors that each comprise, in part, a
substantially rectangular irradiation cavity having a longitudinal axis, and
claim 3 further recites that “the first and second reactors can be selectively
arranged, relative to each other, in a plurality of positions around the
substantially common longitudinal axis.”
As discussed above, Abe discloses ultraviolet irradiation apparatus
200 (reactor) comprising water passage body 30 including rectangular
portion 30a (substantially rectangular irradiation cavity) disposed between
water inlet side end portion 31a and water outlet side end portion 31b. Abe
¶¶ 40, 41, 42; Figs. 6 and 7.
Abe discloses that water inlet side end portion 31a includes flange
joint 3a, and water outlet side end portion 31b includes flange joint 3b. Abe
¶ 46; Figs. 6 and 7. Abe discloses that flange joints 3a, 3b each include bolt
holes that “penetrat[e] through the flange joints 3, for fixing the flange joints
3 with bolts.” Abe ¶ 54. Abe discloses connecting a plurality of adjacent
ultraviolet irradiation apparatuses 200 (reactors) by inserting bolts though
bolt holes of flange joint 3a of one apparatus 200 (reactor) and then through
aligned bolt holes of flange joint 3b of an adjacent apparatus 200 (reactor).
Abe ¶¶ 46, 50, 78, 79; Fig. 8. Abe discloses that in ultraviolet irradiation
apparatuses 200 (reactors) so connected, “the ultraviolet irradiation tubes are
placed on the plane orthogonal to the direction from the water inlet to the
water outlet,” which the Examiner finds indicates that apparatuses 200
(reactors) are placed along and around a common longitudinal axis. Abe
Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019

8
¶ 80; Ans. 6–7. Supporting the Examiner’s finding, Figure 8 of Abe
illustrates a plurality of connected ultraviolet irradiation apparatuses
(reactors) having a substantially common longitudinal axis. Abe ¶ 80; Fig.
8.
Appellant argues that Abe does not disclose first and second reactors
that can be selectively arranged, relative to each other, in a plurality of
positions around a substantially common longitudinal axis, because “Abe
makes no mention whatsoever of rotation of reactors relative to each other to
achieve varying lamp configurations.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that
“the only configuration disclosed in Abe relates to parallel lamp placement”
in which Abe discloses “ultraviolet irradiation tubes 4 arranged in parallel to
one another on the plane orthogonal to the A direction [the direction of water
flow].” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Abe ¶ 64). Appellant argues that in contrast,
Appellant’s Specification discloses that “first and second reactors can be
selectively arranged, relative to each other, in a plurality of positions around
the substantially common longitudinal axis.” “In other words, the reactors
can be rotated with respect to each other. This achieves at least one
advantage of allowing greater flexibility to arrange lamps in various
positions to alter the fluid irradiation profile.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Spec. 5,
l. 15–6, l. 1) (emphasis omitted).
Claim 3 explicitly recites, however, that the first and second reactors
can be selectively arranged, relative to each other, in a plurality of positions
around the substantially common longitudinal axis. As the Examiner
explains in the Answer, the plain language of claim 3, therefore, requires
only that the first and second reactors “have the ability to”—or are capable
of—being selectively arranged, relative to each other, in a plurality of
Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019

9
positions around a substantially common longitudinal axis. Ans. 6.
Consequently, it is of no moment whether Abe explicitly discloses rotation
of reactors relative to each other to achieve varying lamp configuration as
Appellant argues. Rather, to meet this limitation at issues in claim 3, all that
is required of Abe is disclosure of first and second ultraviolet irradiation
apparatuses 200 (reactors) that are capable of being selectively arranged,
relative to each other, in a plurality of positions around a substantially
common longitudinal axis.
Because flange joints 3a, 3b each include numerous bolt holes through
which bolts are inserted to connect adjacent ultraviolet irradiation
apparatuses 200 (reactors), adjacent ultraviolet irradiation apparatuses 200
(reactors) could be connected to each other in various relative orientations
by rotating one apparatus 200 (reactor) relative to an adjacent apparatus
around their common longitudinal axis, or rotating both apparatuses 200
(reactors) relative to each other around the axis, so that different
combinations of pairs of bolt holes in adjacent flange joints 3a, 3b are
aligned and secured with bolts. Accordingly, the ultraviolet irradiation
apparatuses 200 (reactors) disclosed in Abe are capable of being selectively
arranged, relative to each other, in a plurality of positions around a
substantially common longitudinal axis, as recited in claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments, therefore, do not identify reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. We, accordingly, sustain the rejection
of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and (2) as anticipated by
Abe.

Appeal 2019-003163
Application 14/425,019

10

CONCLUSION

Claims

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 102(a)(1),
102(a)(2)
Abe 1–4

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED