Ex Parte Adler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 10, 201813696327 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/696,327 12/05/2012 20411 7590 08/10/2018 The Linde Group 200 Somerset Corporate Blvd. Suite 7000 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert Adler 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. PlOC051 6736 EXAMINER PAQUETTE, IAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/10/2018 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 ROBERT ADLER, GEORG SIEBERT, and MARKUS MAYER Appeal2018-000053 1 Application 13/696,3272 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND According to Appellants, "[t]he invention relates to a method for transporting and distributing gaseous hydrogen." Spec. 1. 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Aug. 13, 2015), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 28, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 2, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Linde AG. See Br. 3. Appeal2018-000053 Application 13/696,327 CLAIMS Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A method for transporting and distributing gaseous hydrogen, characterized in that the gaseous hydrogen is transported in a pipeline network that is at least partially integrated into an existing pipeline network. Br. 17. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Glidewell. 3 2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Glidewell. DISCUSSION Anticipation Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11-13 Appellants group claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11-13 together. See Br. 10- 12. We select claim 1 as representative of this group, and, inasmuch as we sustain the rejection of claim 1, claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11-13 fall with claim 1. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c) (iv). With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds "Glidewell discloses a method for transporting and distributing gaseous hydrogen, characterized in that the gaseous hydrogen is transported in a pipeline network (network formed at, for example, 106A and 108A) that is at least partially integrated into an existing pipeline network (i.e. 104)." Final Act. 2 (citing Glidewell 3 Glidewell, US 2009/0313896 Al, pub. Dec. 24, 2009. 2 Appeal2018-000053 Application 13/696,327 ,r 8, Figs. 1-3). The Examiner further finds that the claims read on Glidewell's system because "[t]he first pipeline network (106A and 108A; Fig. 2) is integrated into the existing pipeline network (104) for distribution (Fig. 1)" and that "[t]he pipeline (106A, 108A) is integrated with the pipeline network (104) since they can each be considered a separate pipeline network and when combined they become integrated." Final Act. 5-6. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1. Appellants argue that Glidewell does not teach an integrated pipeline network as required by claim 1. See Br. 11-12. In support, Appellants indicate that the claimed integration should be interpreted to require two separate pipelines wherein one pipeline is inserted into an existing pipeline in order to carry hydrogen. Id. Appellants assert that this interpretation of the claim is required based on the Specification. In particular, Appellants assert that "paragraphs [0019] to [0023] of the specification [disclose that] the pipeline network is integrated into the interior of the existing pipeline network such that two separate pipeline networks are produced, namely the existing pipeline network carrying natural gas and the integrated pipeline network which is carrying hydrogen." Id. Based on this disclosure, Appellants argue that the Specification defines integration such that "one pipe (the pipeline network) is physically introduced into the existing pipe ( the existing pipeline network) such that hydrogen is transported in the pipeline integrated into the natural gas existing pipeline," i.e., the claim requires that a pipe is inserted into an existing pipeline to form an integrated pipeline. Id. at 12. 3 Appeal2018-000053 Application 13/696,327 We disagree with Appellants' characterization of the scope of claim 1, and we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not require the interpretation of the term "integrated" proposed by Appellants. First, we note that a plain reading of claim 1 does not align with the Appellants' proposed interpretation. Rather, claim 1 only requires pipelines that are "at least partially integrated" without specifying what "integrated" requires. Second, although the Specification provides an embodiment or embodiments in which a pipeline for transporting hydrogen is physically inserted into an existing pipeline, the Specification does not limit the type of integration to those embodiments. In particular, the Specification states integration can be by what "constitutes the most reasonable solution, both energetically and economically," and only indicates that the introduction of a separate pipe within an existing pipeline is one practical solution. Spec. 3. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term "integrated," in the context of claim 1, is not limited by the examples provided in the Specification, and would interpret this term in accordance with its plain meaning, which is "having different parts working together as a unit." Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/integrated (last visited July 31, 2018). Glidewell discloses "providing a hydrogen generating and distribution system" that "minimizes the amount of new infrastructure which must be constructed" and "utilizes pre-existing gas pipelines which, prior to implementation of a hydrogen distribution system, are used for distributing natural gas." Glidewell ,r 8. Glidewell discloses transporting hydrogen in a pipeline, e.g., 108a, which is "associated with the pipeline distribution system 104 for further distribution." See Glidewell Fig. 1; ,r,r 24, 25. Thus, 4 Appeal2018-000053 Application 13/696,327 the Examiner's finding that Glidewell discloses distributing hydrogen in a pipeline as required by claim 1 (see Final Act. 2, Answer 6) is supported by the record. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Glidewell. For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11-13, which fall with claim 1. Obviousness Claim 3 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further requires that "after removing hydrogen from the pipeline network, the hydrogen is compressed to a pressure of 900 bar or is decompressed to a pressure that is below the pressure at which the hydrogen is transported in the pipeline network." Br. 1 7. The Examiner finds that Glidewell discloses compressing hydrogen after it is removed from the pipeline, but the Examiner acknowledges that Glidewell is silent regarding the pressure of the decompressed hydrogen. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also finds: However, pressurizing in tank 17 6 can be considered pressurizing after removing from the pipeline network because it is pressurized after leaving pipeline network portion (174). The hydrogen is also pressurized after removing hydrogen from the pipeline network when it is stored at a residence's storage tank (315) or on tank trucks (305) for transport (Paragraph 104). Additionally, in the embodiment where the pipeline is sent directly to the end user (at 112A, 1128; Fig. 1 ), the hydrogen is inherently decompressed as it leaves the pipeline and is used by the end user such that it is "decompressed to a pressure that is below the pressure at which the hydrogen is transported in the pipeline network" since in order for the fluid to travel it would have to be moving from a high pressure area to a lower pressure area. 5 Appeal2018-000053 Application 13/696,327 Ans. 6-7. Appellants argue that claim 3 "is not obvious [in view of Glidewell] as the hydrogen is being removed from the separate pipe in the existing pipeline and can be raised or lowered in pressure after this removal. In Glidewell the hydrogen is being pressurized before it is fed into the pipeline distribution system." Br. 14--15. We are not persuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner that the claim 3 requirement that the hydrogen is "decompressed to a pressure that is below the pressure at which the hydrogen is transported in the pipeline network" would have been obvious to the extent that one of ordinary skill in the art would infer that, in Glidewell, hydrogen is being decompressed to a pressure below its pipeline- transportation pressure when it leaves the pipeline and is used by the end user. See Ans. 6-7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3. Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites that "the hydrogen is compressed by means of at least one booster compressor." Br. 17. The Examiner finds that compression in Glidewell "is inherently or at the very least obviously [by] a booster compressor since booster compressors are notoriously well known in the art." Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that "the particular compressor employed is not an obvious choice given the different purposes" of the claimed method and Glidewell's method. Br. 15. Specifically, Appellants indicate that the method of the claim and that disclosed in Glidewell are different because Glidewell does not teach the integration required by claim 1, i.e. the introduction of a new pipe physically into an existing pipe. Id. Thus, 6 Appeal2018-000053 Application 13/696,327 Appellants assert "there is no teaching or suggestion as to what to do with the output of [the claimed] integrated pipeline." Id. We are not persuaded of error at least because Appellants' argument appears to be premised on their proposed incorrect interpretation of the term "integrated" argued with respect to the rejection of claim 1. As discussed above, we are not persuaded that the claims should be construed in this manner. Appellants do not otherwise explain why the use of a booster compressor would not have been obvious as proposed by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4. Claim 6 Appellants do not present separate arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 6. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claim 6. Claim 9 Appellants also separately argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9. However, Appellants argue only that "the pressure at which the hydrogen is deployed in compressed gas storage vessels is not taught or suggested either by Glidewell as the hydrogen, is from an entirely different integrated network of pipes and not integrated networks." Br. 15. Appellants also indicate they are relying on "[t]he same argument as applied above." Id. As we do not find Appellants' previous arguments persuasive, we are not persuaded by those arguments with respect to this claim. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claim 9. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-13. 7 Appeal2018-000053 Application 13/696,327 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation