Ex Parte Chao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12342533 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/342,533 12/23/2008
4586 7590 09/28/2016
ROSENBERG, KLEIN & LEE
3458 ELLICOTT CENTER DRIVE-SUITE 101
ELLICOTT CITY, MD 21043
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
YEI-CHIN CHAO
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.
MR3287-69 2827
EXAMINER
PO, MING CHEUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
ptoactions@rklpatlaw.com
ptoactions@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEI-CHIN CHAO, GUAN-BANG CHEN, CHIH-YUNG WU,
HUNG-WEI HSU, and CHIH-PENG CHEN1
Appeal2015-001663
Application 12/342,533
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
decision of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a liquid oxidizer that "renders
a preferable burning efficiency and decreases the discharging of burnt
contaminants." Spec. 1 :5-8.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is National Cheng-
Kung University. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-001663
Application 12/342,533
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A method of burning wastes in a burner, said
burner including a combustion chamber for receiving and
burning a waste material, the method comprising:
preparing a liquid burning enhancer compound
consisting essentially of a hydrogen peroxide (H202) and
a dihydrogen monoxide (H20), said H202 being present
in said liquid burning enhancer compound in a first
proportion of at least 30% (percent by weight), and said
H20 being present in said liquid burning enhancer
compound in a second proportion of up to 70% (percent
by weight), wherein a sum of said first and second
proportions is substantially 100%;
subsequently applying said liquid burning
enhancer compound to a waste material to wet-treat the
same with said liquid burning enhancer compound;
subsequently placing said wet-treated waste
material in the combustion chamber, wherein said wet-
treated waste material forms a waste material bulk with
randomly dispersed properties; and
subsequently igniting said waste material wet-
treated with said liquid burning enhancer compound
within said combustion chamber thereby causing burning
of said waste material, resulting in an enhanced
decomposition of said H202 of said liquid burning
enhancer compound to produce gaseous oxygen (02) and
heating steam, thus promoting substantially complete and
speedy burning of said waste material.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejection
of claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Toshiaki2 in
2 Toshiaki et al., JP 61027412 A, published Feb. 6, 1986.
2
Appeal2015-001663
Application 12/342,533
view of Delchev3 and Dissmore, 4 and the rejection of claims 2-5 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Toshiaki, Delchev,
Dissmore, and Strong. 5
OPINION
We sustain the above rejections based primarily on the Examiner's
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to Appellants' arguments,
as expressed in the Final Action and Answer. The following comments are
added for emphasis.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that T oshiaki teaches a process for thermal
disposition of waste that includes applying an additive such as hydrogen
peroxide water to waste before feeding the combination of waste and
additive to an incinerator. Final Act. 3. The Examiner states that Toshiaki
does not explicitly teach the proportions of hydrogen peroxide and water in
Toshiaki's additive, but finds that Delchev discloses the use of an aqueous
solution of hydrogen peroxide in combination with a burnable substance to
create a hot gas jet. Id. The Examiner further finds that Delchev teaches
that the aqueous solution may contain up to 55% hydrogen peroxide. Id.
The Examiner recognizes that Delchev uses a catalyst to decompose the
hydrogen peroxide, and that the "resulting combusting gases include steam,
carbon dioxide and oxygen," but finds that Dissmore teaches that "elevated
temperatures are enough to tum the hydrogen peroxide into water and
oxygen and the water into water vapor." Id. at 4.
3 Delchev et al., US 4,698,965, issued Oct. 13, 1987.
4 Dissmore, US 4,290,392, issued Sept. 22, 1981.
5 Strong, US 4,061,721, issued Dec. 6, 1977.
3
Appeal2015-001663
Application 12/342,533
The Examiner thus determines that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to "apply the ratios that DELCHEV et al.
teach to the hydrogen peroxide water that TOSHIAKI teaches with a
reasonable expectation of success given that DISSMORE teaches that the
application of hydrogen peroxide and water to material and combustion can
be performed sans a catalyst." Id. at 4--5.
Appellants argue that Toshiaki discloses an additive that is composed
of phosphoric acid and hydrogen peroxide water, whereas claim 1 requires a
compound "consisting essentially" of H202 and H20 in amounts such that
the sum of the proportions of H202 and H20 is "substantially 100%." Br.
10. As the Examiner points out, however, Toshiaki explicitly teaches the
use of an acid constituent such as phosphoric acid and/ or an acidified
constituent such as hydrogen peroxide solution. Toshiaki, 1;6 Ans. 7. Thus,
Toshiaki fairly discloses or suggests the use of a compound consisting
Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined Delchev and Toshiaki, because Delchev is not applicable to,
and expressly teaches away from, a "bulk handling waste disposing system."
Br. 15. Specifically, Appellants assert that Delchev is "extraneous to the
claimed burning of waste material followed by the enhanced decomposition
of H202 to produce gaseous oxygen and heating steam," because it uses a
catalyst to first decompose the hydrogen peroxide water, followed by
burning of the fuel mixture. Id. at 13. Appellants also argue that "Delchev
6 We follow the parties in citing to the Derwent translation of Toshiaki
provided in the record.
4
Appeal2015-001663
Application 12/342,533
is concerned with providing substantially homogeneously mixed fuel,"
whereas claim 1 requires a "waste bulk material with randomly dispersed
properties," and that the claimed waste material bulk cannot be used as the
fuel in the fuel mixture in Delchev. Id. at 13-15.
Appellants similarly argue a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have combined Dissmore and Toshiaki because Dissmore is "focused on
fuel combustion in internal combustion engines where the ratio of
H202/water and fuel is precisely calculated to provide operativity of the
system," not burning of waste. Id. at 16-17. Appellants also argue that
Dissmore does not disclose pretreating fuel with hydrogen peroxide water
prior to being introduced into the combustion chamber, or placing "wet-
treated waste material in the combustion chamber" as required by claim 1.
Id. at 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Toshiaki expressly
discloses treating waste with hydrogen peroxide water. Toshiaki, 1.
Delchev teaches the benefits of combining hydrogen peroxide with other
burnable substances. Delchev, 1 :39--45. According to Delchev,
The introduction of the hydrogen peroxide and burnable
substance makes use of the free oxygen which is a product of the
decomposition of hydrogen peroxide .... If a proper mixture is
used, such that a near stoichiometric ratio is combusted, the
resulting combusted gases include steam, carbon dioxide, and
oxygen. Consequently, the system is very clean burning in that
carbon monoxide and free hydrocarbons can be virtually
eliminated. Furthermore, as air is not employed in this system,
no NOx would normally be formed.
Id. at 1 :52---65.
5
Appeal2015-001663
Application 12/342,533
Dissmore similarly discloses the introduction of hydrogen peroxide
into a combustion chamber, which
supplies additional oxygen to insure complete combustion of the
hydrocarbon fuel and simultaneously the high energy content
present in the hydrogen peroxide serves to boost the power
output of the engine. Furthermore, the water in the hydrogen
peroxide charge produces a washing effect on the engine
combustion chamber which enables combustion to proceed at a
lowered temperature which results in lowered NOx content of the
exhaust gas. The more complete fuel combustion brought about
by this system also eliminates the need for catalytic converters.
Dissmore, Abstract.
In view of the common subject matter disclosed in Toshiaki, Delchev,
and Dissmore, the Examiner reasonably concluded that it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of Toshiaki, Delchev, and Dissmore to
arrive at the claimed subject matter. Appellants' identification of other
differences between Delchev, Dissmore, and the claimed invention is not
sufficient to establish reversible error on the part of the Examiner. See Irz re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's
practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's
rejections." (citing Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) ).
Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' argument that the combined
teachings of Toshiaki, Delchev, and Dissmore fail to disclose all of the
limitations recited in claim 1. Appellants' arguments in this regard
improperly address each reference individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
426 (CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.").
6
Appeal2015-001663
Application 12/342,533
For all of the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 over the combined teachings of Toshiaki, Delchev, and Dissmore.
Claims 2-5
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further requires the addition of a
stabilizer into the liquid burning enhancer compound. Br. 30 (Claims
App'x). In addition to the disclosures of Toshiaki, Delchev, and Dissmore,
discussed above, the Examiner finds that Delchev and Dissmore both
disclose the use of stabilizers to inhibit decomposition of hydrogen peroxide
solutions. Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds that Strong teaches the
use of stabilizer additives in aqueous hydrogen peroxide, and that it would
have been obvious to use one of Strong's specific stabilizers in combination
with Toshiaki, Delchev, and Dissmore to "inhibit the decomposition of the
hydrogen peroxide solution." Id. at 5---6.
Appellants do not dispute that Strong teaches the use of a stabilizer in
aqueous hydrogen peroxide. See, e.g., Ans. 22. Appellants argue, however,
that Strong does not cure the deficiencies of Toshiaki, Delchev, and
Dissmore, and that Strong does not disclose or suggest the use of stabilizers
in aqueous hydrogen peroxide in connection with the combustion of wastes.
Id. at 20-22.
For the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, we
disagree that the combined teachings of Toshiaki, Delchev, and Dissmore
suffer from any deficiencies. Furthermore, although Strong does not
explicitly mention using stabilized hydrogen peroxide in the combustion of
wastes, Delchev and Dissmore do, and Appellants have not directed us to
any evidence suggesting that Strong's stabilized hydrogen peroxide
solutions may only be used for "bleaching, hair dyeing and waving,
7
Appeal2015-001663
Application 12/342,533
processing of photographs for permanence, and preparation of cosmetics and
mild antiseptics." Strong, 1: 13-15; Delchev, 1 :47-50; Dissmore, 2:68-3:3;
see also KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person
of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 over
Toshiaki, Delchev, Dissmore, and Strong.
With regard to dependent claims 3-5, Appellants rely on the same
arguments presented in support of the patentability of claims 1 and 2. For
the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments
as to the patentability of claims 1 and 2. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3-5.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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