Ex Parte ErnstDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 6, 201411632812 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/632,812 01/18/2007 Patrik Ernst 06-733 1198 34704 7590 10/06/2014 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. 900 CHAPEL STREET SUITE 1201 NEW HAVEN, CT 06510 EXAMINER HARP, WILLIAM RAY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3651 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/06/2014 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 PATRIK ERNST ________________ Appeal 2012-007718 Application 11/632,812 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claim 40. Br. 4; Ans. 3. Claims 1‒39 and 41‒48 have been canceled. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to a device and a method for pneumatic conveying of a bulk material.” Spec. para. 1. Sole claim 40 is reproduced below: Appeal 2012-007718 Application 11/632,812 2 40. Method for conveying a bulk material comprising providing a device for pneumatic conveying of a bulk material in the dense flow method, comprising a conveyor line having a plurality of conveyor line sections, the conveyor line having a closed cross-section defining a conveyor channel, a compressed gas secondary line defining a compressed gas channel and compressed gas passage for feeding the conveyor channel with a pressurised gas from the compressed gas channel, a fluidising device associated with the conveyor line, the fluidising device comprising a fluidising body associated with each of the plurality of conveyor line sections of the conveyor line, the fluidising bodies being connected together by way of a common fluidising gas supply line system, and control means for supplying fluidising gas to the fluidising bodies independently of each other for controlling the individual fluidising bodies independently of each other, each fluidising body having a fluidising gas channel and fluidising gas passage opening for feeding a fluidising gas out of the fluidising gas channel into the conveyor channel, wherein the fluidising body is arranged in a base area within the conveying channel, wherein the transported bulk material is pressurised in a pressure vessel, fed from the pressure vessel into the conveyor line, loosened by means of the compressed gas fed from the compressed gas secondary line into the conveying channel from above, and fluidised by the fluidising gas fed from the fluidising gas channel in the floor into the conveying channel. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Kanics US 3,253,865 May 31, 1966 Morgan US 3,370,890 Feb. 27, 1968 Kelly US 3,393,943 July 23, 1968 Ply US 4,220,426 Sept. 2, 1980 Möller US 4,595,317 June 17, 1986 Appeal 2012-007718 Application 11/632,812 3 THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgan, Möller, Ply, Kanics, and Kelly. Ans. 5. ANALYSIS Although the Examiner also relies on the teachings of Ply, Kanics, and Kelly in the rejection of claim 40 (Ans. 5, 6), Appellant only challenges the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings of Morgan and Möller (Br. 9‒11). We likewise only address the teachings of Morgan and Möller. Appellant’s arguments can be summarized as follows: “[n]one of the prior art references cited by the Examiner recognize the problem to which the instant invention is addressed nor does the prior art suggest how the problem may be overcome.” Br. 9. Appellant identifies the problem as the compaction of bulk material and particularly the plugging of a conveying channel. Spec. paras. 8, 13. Appellant states that the “problem is overcome by the combination of the fluidising means with the compressed gas secondary line in accordance with the present invention.” Br. 9. On this point, the Examiner finds that Morgan teaches “a fluidising device (29)” and that Möller teaches “a compressed gas secondary line (2).” Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine them “since the elements are known in the art, and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined them and achieved predictable results.” Ans. 6. The reasons for combining Ply, Kanics, and Kelly with the combination of Morgan and Möller are also expressed by the Examiner. Ans. 6. Appeal 2012-007718 Application 11/632,812 4 Appellant initially contends that “[t]here is only one compressed gas channel in Morgan” (Br. 9), and we agree; however, the Examiner relied on Morgan for disclosing a channel in the base area of the conveyor as claimed and the Examiner relied on Möller for disclosing a gas channel in the apex area of the conveyor as claimed. Ans. 5. Their combination would result in two such channels, one low and one high, in the conveying area. We also note that Möller’s Fig. 10 discloses a pair of gas channels (2 and 2') in the conveying area. Möller 4:6, 7 and 5:13‒15. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, Appellant’s discussion of Morgan alone, when the rejection is based on a combination of references, is not persuasive of examiner error. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant also contends that “[t]he secondary reference to Möller et al. does not provide two gas channels” (Br. 9, 10) but Appellant fails to indicate how Möller’s Figure 10 fails to disclose two gas channels. See supra. Appellant also contends that “[t]he gas channel 2 in Möller et al. is for the same purpose as the channel 29 in Morgan. These two channels, 29 in Morgan and 2 in Möller et al., are functionally equivalent.” Br. 10. We disagree that the two channels of Morgan and Möller are functionally equivalent because Morgan’s channel 29 is for the upward fluidizing of dry material “to prevent gravitational packing” (Morgan 3:11‒26 and Fig. 4) while Möller’s channel 2 provides the feed gas that pushes the dry material longitudinally as depicted by arrow B (Möller 4:12‒39 and Fig. 1).1 Accordingly, because Morgan’s channel fluidizes the material in a generally 1 We further note the Möller discloses that during operation, “a layer A of bulk goods forms on the bottom of the feeding line 1 which is to be assumed as resting” and that “layer B” flows continuously above this layer A. See Fig. 1 and 4:29-33. Appeal 2012-007718 Application 11/632,812 5 vertical direction and because Möller’s channel causes the material to move horizontally along the conveyor, we do not agree with Appellant that the two channels “are functionally equivalent.” Appellant further contends that the Examiner relied on “hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s instant disclosure.” Br. 10; see also Br. 11. However, Appellant does not explain how the Examiner relied on hindsight and not, instead, on the stated rationale that “each of the devices (the compressed gas secondary line and the fluidizing device) performs the same function in the combination as they do separately.” Ans. 7. In other words, one fluidizes the material while the other conveys it along the pipe. As such, the Examiner concludes that “since each device performs it[s] separate function in the combination, the combination would have yielded nothing but predictable results” (Ans. 7), and Appellant does not explain how this conclusion was improperly reached via a reliance on “hindsight reconstruction.” Appellant additionally contends that “[n]either of the two prior art references, Morgan or Möller et al., suggest the problem to which the instant invention is addressed.” Br. 10. However, the Examiner does identify where each such reference addresses the well-known problem of plugging. Ans. 6, 7. Appellant also contends that neither reference “suggest[s] a secondary gas line as claimed to overcome the problem” yet at least Möller overcomes this common plugging problem by employing a secondary gas line (assuming here that Morgan’s gas line is a fluidizing line and not a secondary gas line). See Ans. 5, 7. Appellant further contends that even if Morgan and Möller were combined, such combination “would amount to nothing more than an Appeal 2012-007718 Application 11/632,812 6 increase in the consumption of gas for transporting the materials.” Br. 10, 11. Appellant provides no basis for this contention and it is not otherwise self-evident from the record. Appellant does not explain how the Examiner’s proposed two-channel combination would consume any more gas than is already consumed by the devices of Morgan and Möller, both of which keep the dry material in a turbulent state and also convey the material along the pipe. Morgan 3:8‒18; Möller 4:12‒39. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error and, as such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40 as being obvious over Morgan, Möller, Ply, Kanics, and Kelly. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claim 40 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation