Ex Parte Fair

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2016

12389758 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/389,758 0212012009
15118 7590
Ronald M, Kachmarik
Cooper Legal Group LLC
6505 Rockside Road
Suite 330
Independence, OH 44131
02/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DelomeFair
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.
GEEP-44159 3816
EXAMINER
AKRAM, IMRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2016 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):
patdoc@cooperlegalgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DELO ME FAIR
Appeal2014-009450
Application 12/3 89, 7 5 81
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is General Electric
Company. Appeal Brief filed March 4, 2014 ("App. Br."), 3.
Appeal2014-009450
Application 12/389,758
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision 2 finally rejecting claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,178,758 issued to
Paull et al., December 18, 1979 ("Paull"), in view of U.S. Patent
No. 3,868,817 issued to Marion et al., March 4, 1975 ("Marion"). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Independent claim 1 is representative3 of the invention, and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App.
Br. 16 (emphasis added)):
1. A gasification facility including:
a gasifier;
a high temperature gas cooler in fluid communication with the
gasifier, the high temperature gas cooler being configured to receive
and cool one or more gases generated at the gasifier, recover the heat
produced by the cooling of the one or more gases and produce
superheated steam using the recovered heat;
two steam utilization devices in fluid communication with the high
temperature gas cooler, the gas cooler delivering at least a portion of
the superheated steam to the steam utilization devices, the steam
utilization devices being operated by the superheated steam to provide
respective outputs utilized within the gasification facility, a first of the
steam utilization devices includes a steam turbine in fluid
communication with the high temperature gas cooler and configured
to generate electric power as an output using at least the portion of the
superheated steam produced at the high temperature gas cooler, and
2 Final Office Action mailed November 5, 2013 ("Final").
3 Appellant argues claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 together as a group. See App.
Br. 5.
2
Appeal2014-009450
Application 12/389,758
an air separation unit separating oxygen from air and at least partially
operated by the electrical power output from the stream turbine, the
air separation unit being electrically connected to the steam turbine to
receive the electric power from the steam turbine, a second of the
steam utilization devices includes at least one compressor of the air
separation unit, which is in fluid communication with the high
temperature gas cooler and configured so as to receive and be driven
by at the least a portion of the superheated steam, the air separation
unit being operatively connected to the gasifier for provision of
oxygen to the gasifier.
Has Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner's determination
that Paull alone or in combination with Marion describes or suggests an
apparatus having an "air separation unit being electrically connected to the
steam turbine to receive the electric power from the steam turbine" as recited
in independent claim 1? See App. Br. 12-14; see also Reply Brief filed
August 27, 2014 ("Reply Br."), 8-10. We answer this question in the
affirmative.
The Examiner finds Paull discloses the invention as claimed with the
exception of a second steam utilization device. See Ans. 2-3. The Examiner
finds "Paull discloses an additional output 82 for superheated steam ... but
not what that additional superheated steam is used for." Id. at 3. The
Examiner finds Marion discloses splitting a steam stream into two streams
for use with two turbine and compressor systems. Id. at 3. The Examiner
concludes "[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention to utilize the multiple steam streams of Paull in
multiple turbine/compressors as in Marion to produce energy with two
separate means and outputs," because "[t]wo steam streams and two turbines
3
Appeal2014-009450
Application 12/389,758
[would] advantageously produce[] energy at two different points in the
system." Id.
Appellant argues that even if Paull were modified to include a second
turbine/ compressor system, as taught by Marion, the resultant gasification
facility would not include all of the limitations recited in independent
claim 1, because the Examiner has failed to identify a teaching or suggestion
of an "air separation unit being electrically connected to the steam turbine to
receive the electric power from the steam turbine" (claim 1). App. Br. 13.
With respect to the argued claim limitation, the Examiner relies on
column 11, lines 25-33 and Figure 1 of Paull as disclosing "turbine 70
capable of producing electricity via the superheated steam; and an air
separation unit 76 capable of separating oxygen from air, the air separation
unit 76 connected to the turbine 70, capable of making use of electricity
generated by the turbine." Ans. 2 (internal citations omitted). We have
considered the reiied-upon disclosure in PauH, and agree with Appeiiants
that there is no disclosure of an electrical connection between air separation
unit 76 and turbine 70 whereby the air separation unit receives electric
power from the steam turbine. Compare Paull 11 :29-30 ("Turbine 70
powers air compressor 72 and optionally electric generator 73."), id. at 6:63-
65 (explaining that "the working fluid in an expansion turbine ... produc[ es]
mechanical power or electrical energy") and Fig. 1 (wherein an electrical
connection is not illustrated) with Spec. i-f 17 ("[T]he air separation unit 12 is
electrically connected to the steam turbine 26, as schematically indicated at
28, and is configured to operate using the electric power generated at the
steam turbine 26.") and Fig. 1 (illustrating electrical connection 28).
4
Appeal2014-009450
Application 12/389,758
In sum, Appellant has persuasively argued that the Examiner failed to
identify any description in Paull, alone or in combination with Marion, of a
gasification facility that includes an "air separation unit being electrically
connected to the steam turbine to receive the electric power from the steam
turbine" as recited in claim 1. Nor has the Examiner explained why it would
have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of the invention to have
modified the facility of Paull, as modified by Marion, to include this feature.
Thus, we agree with Appellant that there is insufficient evidentiary support
for the reasoning advanced by the Examiner in finding that all the claimed
limitations are met by the combination of Paull and Marion.
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and
10-14 as unpatentable over Paull and Marion.
REVERSED
cdc
5