Ex parte ARNAUD

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2000

07749554 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 34
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHNNY ARNAUD
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-0537
Application 07/749,554
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3
and 7. Claim 2, the other claim remaining in the present
application, has been allowed by the examiner (see page 1 of
answer. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for the regeneration of contact media,
comprising:
a treatment vessel having a plurality of
vertically arranged chambers, each chamber
having a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet, said
Appeal No. 1997-0537
Application No. 07/749,554
2
fluid inlet being located at a position above
said fluid outlet, said chambers for containing
volumes of said contact media to be regenerated,
said chambers defined by members adapted to
retain a volume of said contact media within the
chamber while allowing the downward flow of
fluid through said contact media;
a fluid inlet for treatment fluid to direct said
treatment fluid proximate the top of the
uppermost chamber of said plurality of chambers;
and
a transfer tank operatively coupled through at
least one manifold to said chambers, said
treatment tank and said manifold cooperatively
arranged to allow the movement of said volumes
of said resin from at least one of said chambers
to said transfer tank, and the subsequent
movement of resin from said transfer tank to a
different of said chambers.
In the rejection of the appealed claim, the examiner
relies upon the following references:
Mindler 3,298,950 Jan. 17, 1967
Cooper 3,547,810 Dec. 15, 1970
Appealed claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mindler. Claim 3 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Cooper in view of Mindler.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we find ourselves in agreement with
Appeal No. 1997-0537
Application No. 07/749,554
3
appellant that the examiner's rejections are not sustainable.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 1
and 7 under § 102 over Mindler. Although the apparatus of
Mindler, unlike the claimed apparatus, discloses a fluid inlet
that is located near the bottom of chamber 10 which is
generally below the fluid outlet at flume 19, the examiner has
somewhat imaginatively focused upon a portion of the chamber
between cylinders 13 and 15, 33 and 35, and 53 and 55 to
define three vertically arranged chambers which meet the
claimed requirements of having a fluid inlet located above the
fluid outlet wherein a volume of fluid has a downward flow.
However, as accurately pointed out by appellant, this area of
Mindler's mixing zone does not meet the claim requirement of a
chamber "adapted to retain a volume of said contact media
within the chamber while allowing the downward flow of fluid
through the contact media" (claim 1, lines 5-7, emphasis
added). The area between cylinders 15 and 16 of Mindler is
not adapted to retain a volume of contact media but, rather,
the system of Mindler provides for co-current flow of resin
and water through the mixing zone and into the separating zone
(column 5, lines 11 et seq). While the examiner states that
Appeal No. 1997-0537
Application No. 07/749,554
4
the fluid passing through cylinders 15 and 16 of Mindler "must
inherently travel downwardly through these chambers" (page 5
of answer, emphasis original), the examiner does not explain
how such downward movement of fluid inherently results in a
retaining of the contact media. In Mindler, the resin is
separated from the water in separating zone 17 and, to some
degree, the resin is retained in the bottom of the separating
zone, not in the zone between cylinders 13 and 15.
Since Cooper is not relied upon by the examiner to modify
the vertically arranged chambers of Mindler, Cooper does not
alleviate the deficiencies of Mindler discussed above with
respect to the claimed apparatus. Accordingly, it follows
that we will also not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 3 under § 103 over Cooper in view of Mindler.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Appeal No. 1997-0537
Application No. 07/749,554
5
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 1997-0537
Application No. 07/749,554
6
Rodney K. Caldwell
Arnold, White & Durkee
750 Bering Drive
Houston, TX 77057