Ex Parte Dighe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2015

12378167 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/378,167 02/11/2009 Shyam V. Dighe 2008WP2 (ALTER-99124) 3235
29694 7590 05/11/2015
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
ONE OXFORD CENTRE, 38TH FLOOR
301 GRANT STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-6404
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HUNG D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2015 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 SHYAM V. DIGHE, MARK F. DARR,
IVAN A. MARTORELL, PIETER VAN NIEROP,
ALEKSANDR GORODETSKY,
and RICHARD DALE BOWER
____________________

Appeal 2013-004863
Application 12/378,167
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shyam V. Dighe et al. (Appellants)1 seek review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–39. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants indicate that the real party in interest is Alter NRG Corp.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2013-004863
Application 12/378,167

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a plasma gasification reactor. Spec. 1, l. 6.
Claims 1, 20, and 36 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A plasma gasification reactor comprising:
a refractory-lined reactor vessel including a bottom
section and a top section;
the bottom section containing a carbonaceous bed and
arranged with a sidewall with one or more plasma torch ports
containing, in each port, a plasma torch with a capability of the
one or more plasma torches of establishing an elevated
temperature within the bed of at least about 600° C;
the top section extending between the bottom section and
a roof over the top section; and
the top section comprising a lower portion having a first
conical wall positioned at a first angle within a range of from
about 5 degrees to about 25 degrees relative to a central vertical
axis of the top portion, and an upper portion having a second
conical wall positioned at a second angle relative to a central
vertical axis of the top section, the second angle being smaller
than the first angle.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Squires
Santén
Tang
Tsantrizos
Do
US 3,957,458
US 4,466,807
US 5,597,541
US 5,958,264
US 6,987,792 B2
May 18, 1976
Aug. 21, 1984
Jan. 28, 1997
Sept. 28, 1999
Jan. 17, 2006
Kaneko US 2002/0159929 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Appeal 2013-004863
Application 12/378,167

3

REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1–6, 11–13, 16–28, 32, and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do and Squires. Final Act. 2.
II. Claims 7–10, 14, 15, 29–31, and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do, Squires, and Kaneko.
Final Act. 10.
III. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Do, Squires, Santén, and Tang. Final Act. 13.
IV. Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Do, Squires, and Tsantrizos. Final Act. 14.
V. Claims 38 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Do, Squires, Tsantrizos, and Kaneko. Final Act. 16.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants argue claims 1–6, 11–13, and 16–19 as a group. Appeal
Br. 10. Appellants further argue claims 20–28, 32, and 33 as a group. Id. at
14. We select claim 1 as representative of the first group and claims 2–6,
11–13, and 16–19 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2014). We select claim 20 as representative of the second group and claims
21–28, 32, and 33 stand or fall with claim 20. See id.

2 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite, has been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Answer 2.
Appeal 2013-004863
Application 12/378,167

4

Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in part:
a refractory-lined reactor vessel including . . . a top section;
. . .
the top section comprising a lower portion having a first conical
wall positioned at a first angle within a range of from about 5
degrees to about 25 degrees relative to a central vertical axis of
the top portion, and an upper portion having a second conical
wall positioned at a second angle relative to a central vertical
axis of the top section, the second angle being smaller than the
first angle.
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds that Do discloses much of the
subject matter of claim 1, except for a top section with a first conical wall
positioned at a first angle within a range of from about 5 degrees to about 25
degrees relative to a central vertical axis of the top portion and a second
conical wall as required by claim 1. Final Act. 3 (referencing Do, Fig. 2).
The Examiner further finds that Squires discloses a plasma reactor with a top
section having the first and second conical walls as recited in claim 1. Id.
(referencing Squires, col. 9, ll. 15–19 and Fig. 1A). The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to modify Do’s reactor based on
Squire’s teachings to arrive at the invention of claim 1 “for the purpose of
having a wider . . . top thereby assisting the flow of the gas better.”
Id. at 3–4.
Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner’s proposed modification of
[Do] would render [Do] unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and would
change [its] principle of operation.” Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellants contend
Appeal 2013-004863
Application 12/378,167

5
that the Examiner improperly ignores the teachings of Do as a whole in
rejecting claim 1. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellants explain that Do discloses a plasma reactor having a lower
portion of the top section of the reactor with a conical wall “tilted at about a
45° angle with respect to the central vertical axis of the top portion.”3
Appeal Br. 11. Appellants contend that this wall angle provides for
velocities of the rising hot gases to be low enough as not to entrain
unprocessed waste in the exiting gas stream. Id. at 12 (citing Do, 6:47–59).
Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Do
with the teachings of Squires would decrease the tilt angle of the top section
wall and, by doing so, increase the velocity of the rising gases in the reactor,
“potentially forcing the entering waste feed upward into the exiting gas as
unprocessed waste.” Id.
We find this argument unpersuasive, as it misconstrues Do’s
disclosure. Assuming, arguendo, that Appellants’ narrow definition of Do’s
principle of operation is proper, Do expressly discloses that “[t]he reactor’s
funnel shape and the rising gas feed rate (from the torches and other gas
inlets) are designed to ensure minimum superficial velocity of the rising hot
gases.” Do, 6:47–49. The Examiner’s proposed modification of Do’s
reactor with the teachings of Squires results in a funnel-shaped reactor. As
proposed in the Examiner’s modification, side walls 20 would form a
“spout” of a funnel as they do in the embodiment of Figure 2, with side
walls 14 sloping outward at an angle of between 5 degrees and 25 degrees to

3 We note that Do fails to specify the angle of the conical wall 14—
Appellants apparently base this approximation on the depiction in Do’s
Figure 2. See Do, 4:15–5:29; Fig. 2.
Appeal 2013-004863
Application 12/378,167

6
form the mouth of the funnel. See id. at Fig. 2. Appellants’ argument
misinterprets Do’s disclosure as requiring the side walls of the top section to
be tilted at a 45° angle to achieve the desired low velocity. Do’s disclosure
attributes the low velocity to the funnel shape of the reactor, not a specific
angle for the conical walls forming the mouth of the funnel. See Do
6:47–49.
Further, Appellants’ argument ignores that the rising gas feed rate,
from the torches and other gas inlets, also affects the velocity of the rising
hot gases. See id. at 6:47–49. Appellants provide no persuasive evidence
that, as modified, Do would not operate satisfactorily for its intended
purpose and within its principle of operation, as the resulting reactor would
be funnel-shaped and still allow for adjustments to the rising gas feed rate.
See Answer 3–4 (finding that, as modified, Do’s operation would be
“suitable to the user application”).
For the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–6, 11–13, and 16–19,
which fall with claim 1.

Claim 20
In traversing the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under Rejection I,
Appellants present the same argument as made for claim 1—that the
Examiner’s proposed modification renders Do unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose and would change Do’s principle of operation. Appeal Br. 14–17;
Reply Br. 5–8. For the reasons discussed above in our analysis of claim 1
under Rejection I, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. We also
Appeal 2013-004863
Application 12/378,167

7
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–28, 32, and 33, which fall with
claim 20.

Rejection II
Appellants offer no arguments in support of the patentability of claims
7–10, 14, 15, 29–31, and 34, except that these claims depend from
independent claims 1 and 20. Appeal Br. 17. For the reasons discussed
above in our analysis of claims 1 and 20 under Rejection I, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–10, 14, 15, 29–31, and 34.

Rejection III
Appellants offer no arguments in support of the patentability of claim
35, except that it depends from independent claim 20. Appeal Br. 17. For
the reasons discussed above in our analysis of claims 1 and 20 under
Rejection I, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35.

Rejection IV
Independent claim 36 recites a plasma reactor similar to claim 1,
including, in relevant part:
the top section being characterized by a lower portion having a
first side wall in a form substantially of a truncated inverse cone
that increases in cross-sectional area proceeding up from the
bottom section and an upper portion having a second side wall
in a form substantially of a truncated inverse cone that increases
in cross-sectional area proceeding up from the lower portion,
wherein the first side wall is inclined at a first angle relative to a
central vertical axis of the top section, and the second side wall
is inclined at a second angle relative to the central vertical axis
Appeal 2013-004863
Application 12/378,167

8
of the top section with the second angle being smaller than the
first angle.
Appeal Br., Claims App. As with claim 1, the Examiner’s proposed
rejection modifies Do with the teachings of Squires to arrive at the recited
top section. Final Act. 14–15.
In traversing the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36 under Rejection IV,
Appellants present the same argument as made for claim 1 under Rejection
I—that the Examiner’s proposed modification renders Do unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose and would change Do’s principle of operation. Appeal
Br. 18. For the reasons discussed above in our analysis of claim 1 under
Rejection I, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36. Appellants
offer no additional arguments for the separate patentability of claim 37,
which depends from claim 36. Id. at 19. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 as well.

Rejection V
Appellants offer no arguments in support of the patentability of claims
38 and 39, except that they depend from independent claim 36. Appeal Br.
19. For the reasons discussed above in our analysis of Rejections I and IV,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 38 and 39.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 11–13, 16–28,
32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do and
Squires.
Appeal 2013-004863
Application 12/378,167

9
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–10, 14, 15, 29–31,
and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do, Squires,
and Kaneko.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do, Squires, Santén, and Tang.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 36 and 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do, Squires, and Tsantrizos.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 38 and 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do, Squires, Tsantrizos, and
Kaneko.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2012).

AFFIRMED

pgc