Ex Parte Cuypers et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 2006

09831001 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

Ex parte CINDY THERESA CORNELIA CUYPERS
and DAVID IAN STANBRIDGE
______________

Appeal 2006-1972
Application 09/831,001
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Decided: SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
_______________

Before KIMLIN, GARRIS, and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner finally rejecting claims 13 through 24 and 27 through 34, all of the
claims in the application.
Claim 13 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a device for treating a
gas/liquid mixture, and is representative of the claims on appeal:
13. A device for treating a gas/liquid mixture, comprising
a) a substantially vertical tube having an inlet opening for the mixture
and an outlet for the mixture located downstream;
1
Appeal 2006-1972
Application 09/831,001
b) rotating means arranged in the tube for setting the mixture into
rotating movement;
c) one or more outlet openings arranged downstream relative to the
rotating means for allowing a separated part of the mixture to flow laterally
out of the tube;
d) a return conduit arranged centrally in an axial direction through the
rotating means for reintroducing the flow which has exited via the outlet
openings, and including a divergence element at an end part of the return
conduit for causing the reintroduced flow to diverge substantially laterally
outward from the return conduit and substantially prevent liquid creep flow
along the rotating means; and
e) an axial obstruction in the reintroduced flow path for inducing the
reintroduced flow in the divergence element to diverge substantially laterally
outward from the divergence element;
wherein a flow path of the mixture comprises moving up the tube, out
the one or more openings, and reintroducing the flow through the return
conduit with the flow diverging substantially laterally outward from the
return conduit.
The references relied on by the Examiner are:
Hodgson 4,187,089 Feb. 5, 1980
Karlsson WO 93/05339 Mar. 18, 1993
(published World Intellectual Property Organization Application)
Swanborn WO 97/49477 Dec. 31, 1997
(published World Intellectual Property Organization Application)
The Examiner has rejected claims 13 through 21 and 27 through 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swanborn in view of
Hodgson (Answer 3-5), and claims 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Karlsson in view of Hodgson as in claim 13 and
further in view of Swanborn (id. 6).
We reverse.
2
Appeal 2006-1972
Application 09/831,001
We refer to the Answer and to the Brief and Reply Brief for a
complete exposition of the positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants.
OPINION
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether one of ordinary skill in
this art would have combined Karlsson and Hodgson and thus, replace creep
flow interrupter 7 at the top of internal channel 6, which extends from
channel 12 through the swirling flow body 4 that affects the gas-liquid
mixture in flow space 3, of the vertical tube, cyclone type gas-liquid
separator disclosed in Karlsson FIGs. 1 and 2 (Karlsson, e.g., 1:21-25,
2:5-13 and 31-33, 3:16, to 4: 25), with baffle 44 supported by axially
extending circumferential rib members 46 to pipe 38, which is in
communication with spiral vane 20 through pipes 24,36 that are separated by
drain orifices, in the sole gas-liquid mixture conduit of the horizontal vapor-
liquid separator of Hodgson Figs. 1 and 2 (Hodgson, e.g., col. 1, ll. 34-57,
col. 2, ll. 51-59, and col. 3, ll. 17-35). There is no dispute that Karlsson’s
apparatus modified in this manner satisfies the limitations “a divergence
element at an end part of the return conduit for causing the reintroduced flow
to diverge substantially laterally outward from the return conduit and
substantially prevent liquid creep flow along the rotating means” combined
with “an axial obstruction in the reintroduced flow path for inducing the
reintroduced flow in the divergence element to diverge substantially laterally
outward from the divergence element” specified in clauses d) and e) of claim
13.
3
Appeal 2006-1972
Application 09/831,001
The Examiner submits that creep flow interrupter 7 is a divergent
element in the return conduit 6 as claimed but is not an axial obstruction in
the return flow line as claimed, contending that “Hodgson teaches an axial
flow obstruction (44) in a flow line that carries liquid drops in a gas stream
. . . [and] provide[s] a substantially diverging flow from the divergence
element with the lateral slots formed between the baffles [sic, ribs] 46”
(Answer 3). The Examiner determines that the modification would “have
the axial conical obstruction to have the gases impinge the obstruction so as
to coalesce the liquid droplets in the gas stream, thereby effectively
removing the final traces of liquid from the gas stream as taught by Hodgson
(see col 1 lines 45-50)” (id. 3-4).
Appellants submit that Karlsson employs creep flow interrupter 7 to
“physically deflect liquid creep flow on the outer surface of flow [body] (4)
outward into flow space (3)” and has no affect on the return flow through
channels 12 and 6 which pass vertically through the unobstructed axial
opening at the top of channel 6, arguing that creep flow interrupter 7 is not a
divergence element as specified in claim 1, clause d) (Br. 13-15).
Appellants further submit that Hodgson’s horizontal vapor-liquid separator
differs structurally and operationally from Karlsson’s vertical tube, cyclone
type gas-liquid separator, pointing out that the former using “horizontal
baffle structure (44,46) for the express purpose of reversing fluid flow in
horizontal pipe (24) and allow any liquid droplets impinging on baffle (44)
to coalesce and fall to the bottom” of the apparatus which has “no recycle or
return conduit . . . disposed in main conduit or pipe (24)” (id. 15-17). Thus,
Appellants argue that there is no motivation, other than their specification, to
4
Appeal 2006-1972
Application 09/831,001
combine the references in the manner applied, contending that if one of
ordinary skill in the art were to combine the references, the result would be
adding the baffle structure 44, 46 of Hodgson to the outlet opening 8
downstream of flow body 4 of Karlsson’s apparatus (id. 16-18).
In response, the Examiner contends that Karlsson would have taught
“the device as claimed, except for a modification on the tip (7, figure 1 or
17-figure 2, the flared end of the conduit) of the return (recycle) conduit
(12);” “[t]he structure corresponding to the [claimed] axial obstruction is an
inverted cone at the tip of the tube as depicted in Appellant’s figure 3, part
10; the slots around the conduit at (10) providing diverging flow path;” and
“Hodgson teaches similar structure for a gas-liquid separator . . . to coalesce
any remaining droplets in the gas stream” (Answer 6-7). The Examiner
argues that “creep flow is already addressed by [Karlsson] by providing a
diverging element” and the proposed modification “would inherently have
the effect of blowing off the creep flow by the diverging return (recycle)
flow” (id. 7-9).
Appellants reply that the there is no basis in Karlsson and Hodgson to
support a finding that the proposed modification would inherently affect
liquid creep in Karlsson’s apparatus, and thus, the Examiner’s position is
predicated on Appellants’ disclosure (Reply Br. 3-4).
We find that Karlsson would have disclosed that the creep flow
interrupter 7 can be in the form of a truncated cone or a substantially flat
dish as illustrated in Karlsson FIGs. 1 and 2, both of which deflect flow
from flow element 4 into flow space 3 and do not obstruct in any manner the
axial flow of the return flow liquid-air mixture through internal channel 6, as
5
Appeal 2006-1972
Application 09/831,001
Appellants argue. Thus, we find that contrary to the Examiner’s position,
creep flow interrupter 7 does not satisfy the limitation of clause d) of claim 1
for the reason that it does not cause “the reintroduced flow to diverge
substantially laterally outward from the return conduit and substantially
prevent liquid creep flow along the rotating means.”
Therefore, in order to arrive at the claimed apparatus encompassed by
appealed claim 1, one of ordinary skill in this art would have had to replace
creep flow interrupter 7 and its function of physically deflecting outward the
liquid and gas-liquid mixture flow in flow space 3 propelled by swirling
flow body 4, by a structure which has a divergence element and an axial
obstruction as claimed which deflects the gas-liquid mixture return flow in
internal channel 6 outward into flow space 3, the relatively low pressure at
the outlet of internal channel 6 causing the return flow mixture to be “drawn
in by the main flow” in flow space 3 (Karlsson 4:5-8).
We agree with the Examiner that the structure of baffle and ribs 44,46
of Hodgson positioned on internal channel 6 of Karlsson would satisfy the
claim limitations as indeed, it resembles the structure of conical element 17
and slots 19 positioned on recycle conduit 16 of specification FIG. 2
(specification 4:3-8). However, it is well settled that “[t]he mere fact that
the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does
not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1784, 1784-85 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
6
Appeal 2006-1972
Application 09/831,001
We fail to find substantial evidence in the teachings of Karlsson and
of Hodgson which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art
that the references should be combined with the resulting modification of the
Karlsson apparatus with the baffle and ribs of Hodgson. See generally, In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-89, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1334-38 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Indeed, as Appellants point out, and the Examiner does not disagree, there is
no teachings in the references to make the modification based on liquid
creep interruption. We agree with Appellants that the difficulty with the
Examiner’s theory of droplet coalescence is that there is also no teachings in
Karlsson which would have suggested to this person that the purpose of the
liquid-air mixture return flow pulled along in channel 12 and internal
channel 6 by pressure in flow space 3, is droplet coalescence in the channels,
and indeed, the channels are not fitted with drains and there is no disclosure
that the liquid merely runs down the channels. In contrast, the liquid gas
mixture is propelled in the sole gas-liquid mixture conduit of the horizontal
vapor-liquid separator of Hodgson Figs. 1 and 2 by spiral vane 20 in order to
drive the separated liquid through drain orifices with the mixture of air and
remaining liquid impinging baffle 44 to coalesce the remaining droplets
which drains between ribs 46.
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of obviousness
established over the teachings of Karlsson and Hodgson, we reverse the
ground of rejection of claims 13 through 21 and 27 through 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, the Examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness over the teachings of Karlsson, Hodgson,
7
Appeal 2006-1972
Application 09/831,001
and Swanborn and thus, we reverse the ground of rejection of claims 22
through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED

cam

Richard L. Byrne
700 Koppers Building
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1818
8