Ex Parte Euston

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2012

12290972 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/290,972 11/04/2008 Charles R. Euston 5404-00110 4063
7590 12/18/2012
Daniel DeJoseph
FLSmidth Inc.
2040 Avenue "C"
Bethlehem, PA 18017
EXAMINER
LEE, REBECCA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2012 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 CHARLES R. EUSTON
____________

Appeal 2011-013151
Application 12/290,972
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-17. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process for drying copper sulfide concentrates in preparation for
smelting the dried copper concentrate in an oxygen enriched environment,
the oxygen for which is supplied by an oxygen plant that generates waste
nitrogen gas, the process comprising:

A. introducing copper concentrates into a drying chamber;

B. directing waste nitrogen gas from the oxygen plant to a heat
treatment means for heating the nitrogen gas to temperatures suitable to dry
the copper concentrates;
Appeal 2011-013152
Application 12/290,972

2
C. mixing the heated nitrogen gas with the copper concentrate in the
drying chamber to thereby dry the copper concentrates to a moisture content
suitable for a smelter; and

D. recovering the dried copper concentrates.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Foley 2,783,141 Feb. 26, 1957
Worner 3,463,472 Aug. 26, 1969
Villarroel et al. 6,209,225 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
Wood et al. 6,270,555 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
Leahy et al. 7,271,201 B1 Sep. 18, 2007

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a process for drying
copper sulfide concentrates by mixing heated nitrogen gas with the
concentrates in a drying chamber to a moisture content suitable for a smelter.
According to Appellant, by using heated nitrogen gas rather than oxygen, the
possibility of combustion in the dryer is eliminated and “it enables the
copper concentrate drying process to be conducted at temperatures
significantly above the copper concentrate ignition temperature” (Br. 5, third
para.).
Appealed claims 1 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Villarroel. The claims also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 2, 3, and 15 over Villarroel in view of Foley,
(b) claims 5 and 6 over Villarroel in view of Worner,
(c) claims 7 and 8 over Villarroel in view of Wood, and
Appeal 2011-013152
Application 12/290,972

3
(d) claims 9-13, 16, and 17 over Villarroel in view of Leahy and
Foley.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following for emphasis only.
We consider first the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 14
over Villarroel. There is no dispute that Villarroel, like Appellant, discloses
a process for drying copper sulfide concentrates using heated nitrogen gas
generated in oxygen plants. The principal argument advanced by Appellant
is that Villarroel employs nitrogen gas in an indirect heating process wherein
the nitrogen gas is inserted into tubular holes 2 which, in turn, heat adjacent
heat transfer bars 3. Appellant submits that the Examiner has been unable to
show a specific teaching in Villarroel for the claimed step of mixing the
heated nitrogen gas with the copper concentrate.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it fails to address the
thrust of the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner cites the following portion
of Villarroel for a disclosure of directly mixing heated nitrogen gas with the
copper concentrate:
Although there is more than one possible operating way
for the dryer, the simpler one seems to be that where the
concentrate and the hot nitrogen are fed by the top entrance
mouth; while the dry concentrate and the exhaust water vapor
are recovered at the bottom end of the dryer. In this case it is
also advantageous to introduce a small flow of hot nitrogen at
the entrance mouth, in order to promote the evacuation of the
evaporated water inside the dryer. (col. 3, ll. 17-25).
Appeal 2011-013152
Application 12/290,972

4
We note that Appellant has presented no argument to rebut the
Examiner’s position which was presented in the Final Rejection in
response to Appellant’s amendment to the claims.
As for the Examiner’s rejections of the dependent claims under
§ 103, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as set forth in the Answer.
Appellant has not persuaded us that the use of various, conventional
apparatus for drying copper sulfide concentrates, at the specified
temperatures and oxygen concentrations, would have been
nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, we note that
Appellant bases no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner 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

cam