Ex Parte Adler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2018

13696327 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2018)

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