Ex Parte Feugier

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2008

10450363 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDRE FEUGIER
____________

Appeal 2008-2397
Application 10/450,363
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: April 30, 2008
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of
claims 20-26. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2008-2397
Application 10/450,363

Appellant’s invention is directed to a filter declogging device including a
reservoir for storing pressurized inert declogging gas and a nozzle connected
by a pipe for feeding inert declogging gas to at least one distribution element
wherein the nozzle is configured to inject inert gas aligned with the vertical
axis of the wall of the filter. Claim 20 is illustrative and reproduced below:
20. A device for declogging at least one filter of a plant for
producing uranium oxide from uranium hexafluouride [sic.
hexafluoride], comprising:

a reactor including a jacket having a generally
vertical arrangement;

a pipe for injecting uranium hexafluoride, steam
and dilution gas entering the jacket of the reactor together
with at least one unit for filtering gases evacuated from
the reactor having a manifold connected to a pipe for
evacuating gases to outside the reactor in which emerges
an outlet end of at least one filter having a tubular wall
with a vertical axis supported by a plate separating the
gas manifold from an inner space of the jacket of the
reactor in which the filter is placed, the declogging
device having a reservoir for storing pressurized inert
declogging gas; and

an arrangement configured to distribute and route
inert declogging gas toward the at least one filter of the at
least one filtration unit of the reactor, wherein a nozzle
configured to inject inert gas aligned with the vertical
axis of the wall of the filter, the nozzle connected by a
pipe for feeding inert declogging gas to at least one
distribution element.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Feugier 6,136,285 Oct. 24, 2000
2
Appeal 2008-2397
Application 10/450,363

Claims 20-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Feugier. We reverse for substantially the reasons set forth in
the Brief and Reply Brief.
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
non-patentability resides with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
describes, either expressly or under the principle of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
Here, the Examiner not only fails to present persuasive factual
findings establishing where, in Feugier, a description of a device that
satisfies each and every recited claim limitation of any of the rejected claims
can be found, but the Examiner also employs the wrong legal standard for an
anticipation rejection. In this regard, the Examiner relies on obviousness
principles, such as an alleged suggestion and an asserted reasonable
expectation together with a reference to KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727 (2007). These assertions and the cited case law may be relevant to
a particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, not the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection before us in this appeal (Ans. 4 and 5).
Concerning the Examiner’s factual determinations and analysis of the
here claimed subject matter vis- à-vis the device described by Feugier, the
factual insufficiency of the Examiner’s determinations and alleged
anticipation analysis is made apparent by noting the Examiner’s improper
mixing of portions of the disclosure of Feugier relating to nitrogen backflow
for unclogging a filter with portions of Feugier’s disclosure with regard to a
3
Appeal 2008-2397
Application 10/450,363

nozzle for injecting reagents as allegedly furnishing an anticipatory
description of Appellants’ claimed device including a nozzle configured and
arranged to distribute and inject inert declogging gas aligned with the
vertical axis of the wall of the filter (Ans. 4 and 5; Br. 4 and 5; Reply Br. 3
and 4; Feugier, Figs. 3-5, col. 3, ll. 5-21, and col. 5, l. 63 - col. 6, l. 65).
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 20-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Feugier is reversed.

REVERSED

tf/ls

PATRICK J. BIRDE
KENYON & KENYON
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
4