Ex Parte Flynn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

11522702 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111522,702 09/18/2006
7590 09/28/2016
McAfee & Taft
211 North Robinson, Two Leadership Square
10th Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harry E. Flynn
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.
2112 4918
EXAMINER
MA YES, MEL VIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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 HARRY E. FLYNN, CHARLES A. NATALIE,
and ROBERT 0. MARTIN
Appeal2013---008403
Application 11/522,702
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
ELIZABETH ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 6-13, 32, and 37--41. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, 11, and 32 are illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on
appeal and are set forth below:
1. A process for making pigmentary titanium dioxide by the
oxidation of titanium tetrachloride in the presence of aluminum
chloride, comprising the steps of:
placing inert solids and aluminum chloride solids into a
sublimer;
supplying one or more inert gases at a flow rate to the
sublimer;
initiating the sublimation of aluminum chloride solids to
form aluminum chloride gases;
adjusting the flow rate of said inert gases after initiation
r- 1 1• ,. 1 .1 , .1 1 • 1 n r- • , •,1 or suonmauon sucn 1nac me comomea now or men gases wnn
sublimed aluminum chloride gases maintains the inert solids
and aluminum chloride solids in a fluidized state;
combining aluminum chloride gas from the sublimation
step with titanium tetrachloride gases just prior to introducing
the combined gases into an oxidation reactor; and
oxidizing the combined aluminum chloride and titanium
tetrachloride gases.
11. A process for subliming aluminum chloride solids,
comprising the steps of:
combining aluminum chloride solids to be sublimed with
inert, thermally conductive solids in a vessel;
2
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
initiating sublimation of said aluminum chloride solids
by applying sufficient heat through one or more of the vessel,
the inert, thermally conductive solids to cause the sublimation
of aluminum chloride solids in the vessel; and,
following initiation of sublimation, supplying one or
more inert gases to the vessel at flow rates such that the
combined flow of inert gas with the flow of aluminum chloride
sublimation gases maintains said aluminum chloride solids and
inert, thermally conductive solids in a fluidized condition.
32. A process for subliming aluminum chloride solids,
compnsmg:
combining aluminum chloride solids with one or more
inert, thermally conductive solids in a vessel;
supplying sufficient heat to the interior of the vessel to
cause the sublimation of aluminum chloride solids to form
aluminum chloride gases in the vessel;
following initiation of sublimation, supplying one or
more inert gases to said vessel at a flow rate such that the
combined flow of inert gases with sublimed aluminum chloride
gas maintains said aluminum chloride solids and said one or
more inert, thermally conductive solids in a fluidized state.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Beiswenger
Callow et al.
(hereafter "Callow")
Hori
Ott
us 2,791,547
us 3, 174,873
us 4,892,850
us 5,824,146
3
May 7, 1957
Apr. 15, 1961
Jan. 9, 1990
Oct. 20, 1998
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
THE REJECTIONS
1. The amendment filed on 07/03/2012, pertaining to claims 1, 11, and
32, is objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) as introducing new matter into the
disclosure.
2. Claims 1 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
(written description requirement).
3. Claims 1, 11 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
4. Claim 1, 6-8, and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Callow in view of either Hori or Ott.
5. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Callow in view of Hori as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Beiswenger.
6. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35U.S.C.§103(a) as being
unpatentable over Callow.
7. Claims 32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Callow.
4
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
ANALYSIS
We consider certain claims (identified and discussed, infra) in this
appeal, based upon Appellants' presented arguments. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c)
(1) (iv) (2014).
The Objection to the Amendment filed on February 1, 2012 1
On page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner states that Appellants made
certain amendments to the claims in the Amendment filed on February 1,
2012, in response to which the Examiner objected, for containing new matter
in the Non-final Office Action mailed March 6, 2012, and this objection was
maintained in the Final Office Action mailed July 17, 2012. Ans. 4.
In the instant case, on page 32 of the Final Office Action, the
Examiner believes the following subject matter in claims 1, 11, and 32,
as indicated in bold, constitutes new matter:
1. A process for making pigmentary titanium dioxide by the oxidation of
titanium tetrachloride in the presence of aluminum chloride, comprising the
steps of:
placing inert solids and aluminum chloride solids into a sublimer;
supplying one or more inert gases at a flow rate to the sublimer;
1 MPEP § 2163.06 provides that if new subject matter is added to the
disclosure, whether it be in the abstract, the specification, or the drawings,
the examiner should object to the introduction of new matter under 35
U.S.C. § 132, and require applicant to cancel the new matter. If new matter
is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description
requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212 (CCPA 1981). The examiner
should still consider the subject matter added to the claim in making
rejections based on prior art since the new matter (i.e., lack of written
description) rejection may be overcome by applicant.
5
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
initiating the sublimation of aluminum chloride solids to form aluminum
chloride gases;
adjusting the flow rate of said inert gases after initiation of sublimation
such that the combined flow of inert gases with sublimed aluminum chloride
gases maintains the inert solids and aluminum chloride solids in a fluidized
state;
combining aluminum chloride gas from the sublimation step with titanium
tetrachloride gases just prior to introducing the combined gases into an
oxidation reactor; and
oxidizing the combined aluminum chloride and titanium tetrachloride gases.
11. A process for subliming aluminum chloride solids, comprising the
steps of:
combining aluminum chloride solids to be sublimed with inert, thermally
conductive solids in a vessel;
initiating sublimation of said aluminum chloride solids by applying
sufficient heat through one or more of the vessel, the inert, thermally
conductive solids to cause the sublimation of aluminum chloride solids in
the vessel; and,
following initiation of sublimation, supplying one or more inert gases to
the vessel at flow rates such that the combined flow of inert gas with the
flow of aluminum chloride sublimation gases maintains said aluminum
chloride solids and inert, thermally conductive solids in a fluidized
condition.
32. A process for subliming aluminum chloride solids, comprising:
combining aluminum chloride solids with one or more inert, thermally
conductive solids in a vessel;
supplying sufficient heat to the interior of the vessel to cause the sublimation
of aluminum chloride solids to form aluminum chloride gases in the vessel;
following initiation of sublimation, supplying one or more inert gases to
said vessel at a flow rate such that the combined flow of inert gases with
sublimed aluminum chloride gas maintains said aluminum chloride solids
and said one or more inert, thermally conductive solids in a fluidized state.
6
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
Generally, new matter objections are petitionable matters and are
not appealable to the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. Only when the claims
and specification contain new matter that is subject to a rejection and
objection, is a new matter objection appealable. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure § 2163.06, Part IL Review ofNew Matter
Objections and/or Rejections (8th ed., rev. 9, Aug. 2012). In the
instant case, part of the subject matter at issue in the objection
is also rejected in Rejection 2 (discussed, infra), so therefore
we review the objection to claims 1, 11, and 32.
The Examiner's stated position is set forth on page 2 of the Final
Office Action (mailed July 7, 2012), which we do not repeat herein.
Appellants' position for this objection is set forth on pages 6-12 of the
Appeal Brief. Therein, Appellants state, inter alia, that the above-
identified subject matter (in bold) has support in original claims 2-5 and
34. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants also state that pages 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the
Specification further provide support for the Amendment. Id.
In reply, with regard to claim 1, the Examiner states that the
Specification does not teach adjustment or adjusting the flow rate of the
inert gas after initiation of sublimation. Ans. 4. The Examiner states that
adjustment of flow rate during the sublimation process means (as the
Examiner interprets) that the inert gas flow rate can change based upon the
process conditions. Id.
The Examiner further states, with regard to claims 11 and 32, that the
Specification also does not support the limitation "following initiation of
sublimation, supplying one or more inert gases" because a reasonable
interpretation of this limitation is that there is no inert gas in the vessel until
7
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
sublimation, which, the Examiner states, is not the case in view of page 6
of the Specification. Ans. 4--5.
In reply, Appellants reiterate their stated position of how the original
Specification provides support for the Amendment to the claims for the
reasons stated in the Reply Brief. Reply Br. 5-8.
We agree with Appellants' position in the record. Original claims 4
and 5 recite:
4. A process as defined in Claim 3, wherein the hot, inert solids
and aluminum chloride solids are fluidized together in a heated,
fluidized bed sublimer, by a supply of one or more inert gases
sufficient with the flow of sublimed aluminum chloride gases to
fluidize the combined hot, inert solids and aluminum chloride solids
to be sub limed.
5. A process as defined in Claim 4, wherein the supply of one or
more inert gases is determined by determining how much additional
gas flow is needed beyond the flow of sublimed aluminum gases to
fluidize the combined hot, inert solids and aluminum chloride solids
to be sub limed.
We agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 6) that one skilled in the art
would recognize original claim 5 as describing an adjustment in the supply,
i.e., flow rate, of inert gas after initiation of sublimation. More specifically,
by disclosing that "the supply of one or more inert gases is determined by
determining how much additional gas flow is needed" to fluidize the bed of
solids, original claim 5 implicitly discloses that the supply, i.e., flow rate,
of inert gas is adjusted to a level necessary to fluidize the bed. In this
8
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
manner, original claim 5 provides descriptive support for claim 1, as
amended.
Appellants also refer to page 6, 11. 10-1 7 of the Specification
(Appeal Br. 10), which discloses (with text in bold for emphasis):
[t]he process provided by the present invention for subliming
aluminum chloride solids fundamentally involves combining the
aluminum chloride solids with inert, preferably highly thermally
conductive solids for improved heat transfer to the aluminum chloride
solids to be sublimed. Inert gases are supplied to the vessel at a
flowrate at least sufficient with the flow of generated aluminum
chloride gases from sublimation to fluidize the aluminum chloride
solids and inert solids, and the aluminum chloride solids are
heated and sublimed by means of heat provided through the inert
gases and/or through the vessel walls and transferred at least in
part through the inert, thermally conductive solids.
Appellants also refer to page 8, 1. 14 through p. 9, 1. 5 of the
Specification (Appeal Br. 11), which discloses (text in bold for emphasis):
[i]n any event, the aluminum chloride solids are combined with one or
more inert, thermally conductive solids in a vessel, and one or more
inert gases are supplied to the vessel at flowrates at least sufficient
with the flow of aluminum chloride sublimation gases to maintain the
combined aluminum chloride solids and inert, thermally conductive
solids in a fluidized condition. Heat is supplied through heating the
vessel and/or through heating the inert gases for causing
aluminum chloride solids in the fluid bed to sublime, and the heat
transfer to the aluminum chloride solids for such purpose is aided and
accomplished at least in part by means of the inert, preferably
highly thermally conductive solids employed in the fluid bed with
the aluminum chloride solids. To avoid the capital issues associated
with the use of aluminum chloride generators such as described by
Hartmann et al., in which all of substantially all of the titanium
tetrachloride gases in question have been passed through the
generators, preferably in our sublimer the inert gas flowrates will
9
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
not greatly exceed the minimum required flowrate for keeping the
inert and aluminum chloride solids fluidized - preferably being
not more than 200 percent of that required with the flow of
sublimed aluminum chloride gases to achieve fluidization of the
combined hot, inert solids and aluminum chloride solids.
In view of the above, a person of skill would reasonably infer that one
would adjust the inert gas flowrate to keep the bed fluidized. As such, with
regard to claim 1, we agree with Appellants that there is support for the
phrase "adjusting the flow rate of said inert gases after initiation of
sublimation such that the combined flow of inert gases with sublimed
aluminum chloride gases maintains the inert solids and aluminum chloride
solids in a fluidized state" as recited in claim 1.
With regard to claims 11 and 32, based upon the aforementioned parts
of the Specification, there is an implication that sublimation can occur
before inert gases are introduced or after the inert gases are introduced. As
such, with regard to claims 11 and 32, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's interpretation of these claims is too narrow to the extent the
Examiner interprets these claims as requiring that there be no inert gas in the
vessel until after sublimation. Appeal Br. 9-12. We agree with Appellants
(Reply Br. 6-7) that this interpretation made by the Examiner is not a
requirement set forth in the Specification.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the Examiner's objection to
the Amendment of claims 1, 11, and 31, filed on February 1, 2012.
10
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
Rejection 2
We begin by stating that the written description inquiry is one of fact.
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (en bane). "The purpose of the written description requirement,"
the court has explained, "is to prevent an applicant from later asserting that
he invented that which he did not; the applicant for a patent is therefore
required to recount his invention in such detail that his future claims can be
determined to be encompassed within his original creation." Amgen Inc. v.
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(internal quote and citations omitted).
Turning now to the instant rejection, it is the Examiner's position
that claims 1 and 38 have the limitations, "supplying one or more inert
gases at a flow rate" and then "adjusting the flow rate of said inert gases,"
and that these limitations are not described in the original Specification for
the reasons set forth on pages 3--4 of the Final Office Action. The
Examiner states that the Specification may support that the flow rate of
inert gas is determined based on how much is needed beyond the flow of
sublimed gas to fluidize, however this is not a disclosure of adjusting the
flow rate after sublimation has begun. Final Act. 4.
Appellants point out, inter alia, that the language identified by the
Examiner in claims 1 and 38 corresponds to original claims 4 and 5, and has
written descriptive support on page 6, lines 10-17, on page 7, lines 2-10, and
on page 8, line 14 through page 9, line 15, of the Specification.
In the instant case, as we stated, supra, with regard to the objection
made by the Examiner, a person of skill would reasonably infer that one
11
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
would adjust the gas flowrate to keep the bed fluidized. We thus agree with
Appellants that the original Specification encompasses the claimed subject
matter of claims 1 and 38.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
Rejection 32
On page 4 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner states that the
phrase 'just prior" as recited in the claim 1 is indefinite. With regard to both
claims 11 and 32, the Examiner states that the phrase of "following initiation
of sublimation, supplying one or more inert gases ... maintains ... in a
fluidized condition" is unclear. Final Act. 4--5.
With regard to the phrase "just prior", Appellants submit that this
phrase has been used in the claims of many patents and used by courts when
interpreting claims. Appeal Br. 14--15. Appellants also argue that one
skilled in the art would recognize that this term limits the claim to a point in
time, and also refer to parts of the Specification for interpreting this phrase.
Appeal Br. 15.
2 On page 4 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner discussed a lack of
antecedent basis with regard to claim 11. Appellants amended claim 11 in
this regard (in the Amendment filed September 17, 2012 and approved for
entry by the Examiner on October 11, 2012), and therefore this aspect of the
rejection is not included here.
12
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
We note that the words of a claim must be given their "plain
meaning" unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the Specification.
The plain meaning is the ordinary and customary meaning that would be
given to the term by one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). Use of the word
"just" as an adverb in terms of the passage of time indicates "an action
performed in the very recent past". 3 Hence, we agree with Appellants that
the phrase, "just prior," is not unclear in that it limits the claims to a point in
time, and as stated, supra, when reading the claim in light of the
Specification, use of the word "just" as an adverb in terms of the passage of
time indicates "an action performed in the very recent past". We thus
interpret claim 1 as meaning that the act of combining aluminum chloride
gas from the sublimation step with titanium tetrachloride gases, is performed
very recently before introducing the combined gases into an oxidation
reactor.
With regard to claims 11 and 32, we also agree with Appellants that
these claims are not indefinite. The Examiner's idea that the claim is
unclear because it is not known whether the inert gas is continued to be
supplied or is supplied for the first time does not make the claim indefinite;
rather the claim encompasses both scenarios. The inert gas is supplied at a
flow rate such that the combined flow of inert gas with the flow of
aluminum chloride sublimation gas provides for a fluidized condition
(whether or not the inert gas was already being supplied or is being supplied
13
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
for the first time). In re Gardner, 427 F .2d 786, 788 (CCP A 1970)
("Breadth is not indefiniteness.").
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 3.
Rejection 4
Appellants dispute the Examiner's position that the applied art teaches
the claimed element of adjusting the flow rate of the inert gas after initiation
of sublimation such that the combined flow of inert gases with sublimed
aluminum chloride gases maintains the inert solids and aluminum chloride
solids in a fluidized state. Appeal Br. 25-26. The Examiner's findings
regarding this aspect of the claims is set forth on page 6 and page 7 of the
Final Office Action. Therein, the Examiner finds that Callow teaches
"admitting gas to the fluidized bed" and "to entrain subsequently the vapor
of a substance to be evaporated" and refers to col. 3, 1. 3 and col. 6, 1. 2 of
Callow. The Examiner views this disclosure as teaching that the flow rate of
the inert gas is adjusted after initiation of sublimation as recited in
Appellants' claims. Appellants argue that this disclosure does not suggest
the recitation of adjusting the flow rate of the inert gas after initiation of
sublimation such that the combined flow of inert gases with sublimed
aluminum chloride gases maintains the inert solids and aluminum chloride
solids in a fluidized state.
In response, the Examiner explains that Callow teaches at col. 3, 1. 72
that the proportion of oxygen that is by-passed can be controlled by suitable
valves in the gas ducts 8 and 10 and in the main oxygen supply pipe. Ans.
11. The Examiner states that, therefore, Callow teaches the flow control of
the supporting gas. Ans. 12.
14
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
In reply, Appellants argue that the cited portion of Callow (col. 3, 1.
72) does not support the Examiner's position. Appellants submit that when
read in context, this portion describes the process of supplying oxidizing gas
to the furnace. Reply Br. 17. Callow, col. 3, 11. 65-75. Appellants point out
that, as indicated therein, the oxygen used for the oxidation reaction of the
titanium tetrachloride in the furnace can be divided between direct delivery
to the furnace and the other part by-passed to go through the evaporating
apparatus. Appellants argue that the proportion of oxygen passing to each
component can be controlled by a by-pass valve. Reply Br. 17, Callow, col.
3, 11. 70-73. Appellants thus submit that Callow does not teach or suggest
that the adjustment of oxygen flow is in response to sublimation of material
in the evaporating apparatus.
We first note that claim 1 requires "adjusting the flow rate of said
inert gases after initiation of sublimation such that the combined flow of
• ' •,1 1 1• 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 • ' • .1 • ' 1• 1 men gases wnn suonmea ammmum cn10nae gases maimams me men sonas
and aluminum chloride solids in a fluidized state". The claim does not
require that the "adjusting" is in response to sublimation but merely that it
occurs after initiation of sublimation. Callow does teach that the proportion
of oxygen passing to each component can be controlled by a by-pass valve.
A part of the oxygen is delivered to the furnace and a part goes through the
evaporator. The part that goes through the evaporator thus combines with
sublimed gases, and the bed is maintained in a fluidized state. Callow, col. 2,
11. 12-19, 28--43; col. 3, 11. 65-75. Hence, we agree with the Examiner that
Callow suggests "adjusting the flow rate of said inert gases after initiation of
sublimation" as required by the claim-i.e., adjusting oxygen flow in a
suitable manner by operating the bypass valves in ducts 8 and 10 to effect
15
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
sublimation and fluidization in the evaporator in accordance with Callow' s
teachings.
The Examiner relies upon the secondary references for teaching the
aspect of the claims pertaining to combining the aluminum chloride gas with
the titanium tetrachloride gases "just prior" to introducing the combined
gases into the oxidation reactor. We are unpersuaded by Appellants'
arguments in the record (Appeal Br. 22-25; Reply Br. 19-24) for the reasons
stated by the Examiner in the record (Ans. 12-13, 15; Final Act. 7-8). We
add that Appellants' arguments with regard to the meaning of "just prior" as
discussed, supra, with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection involve the interpretation that "just prior" pertained to time. As
such, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that the secondary
references do not suggest this aspect of the claims.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 4.
Rejection 5
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Callow in view of Hori, and further in view of
Beiswenger. The Examiner relies upon Beiswenger for teaching scouring
inside a fluid bed with the help of inert solids. Final Act. 12. Appellants
argue that Beiswenger is non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 27-28. However
we are unpersuaded by such argument for the reason provided by the
Examiner on page 17 of the Answer, and affirm Rejection 5. Beiswinger's
use of inert solids to scour the walls of a fluidized bed reactor to remove
undesirable deposits (col. 1, 11. 37-39, 57-59) addresses the same or similar
problem addressed by Appellants (Spec. 9-10). Therefore, Beiswinger
16
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
constitutes analogous art. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
1374, 1380-1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("[A]n inventor considering a hinge and
latch mechanism for portable computers would naturally look to references
employing other 'housings, hinges, latches, springs, etc.,' which in that case
came from areas such as 'a desktop telephone directory, a piano lid, a
kitchen cabinet, a washing machine cabinet, a wooden furniture cabinet, or a
two-part housing for storing audio cassettes.'") (quoting In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1481-82 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Rejection 6
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Callow. Appellants argue that column 3, line 3 of Callow
does not teach or suggest a process wherein the combined flow of gases
contributes to the fluidization of the bed. Appellants argue that Callow
is void of any suggestion of the ability to use a sublimed gas as a motive
force for fluidizing a bed of solid particles. Therefore, the Examiner has not
provided any basis to conclude that the operation of a process according to
Callow would produce fluidization resulting from the combination of gases.
Appeal Br. 28.
We are unpersuaded by such argument. On page 18 of the Answer,
the Examiner responds by explaining that Callow teaches that two fluids
(Al Ch and an inert gas) enter and exit vessel 1. Example 1 of Callow
teaches that evaporated aluminum chloride is entrained by oxygen and is
discharged from vessel 1 through duct 10 to proceed to the furnace.
Appellants make an effort to distinguish "entrainment" from maintaining a
17
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
fluidized bed. Reply Br. 26. However, we are unconvinced that the
combination of gases (inert and sublimed) do not maintain fluidization of the
bed in Callow for the reasons stated by the Examiner. See Callow's column
2, lines 14-15, which states that "[g]enerally the gases will be inert with
respect to said vapours at the temperature of the fluidized bed."
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 6.
Rejection 7
Claims 32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Callow. Claim 32 is similar to claim 11 regarding the
limitation pertaining to maintaining a fluidized bed by the combined flow of
inert gas with the flow of aluminum chloride sublimation gases. The
Examiner similarly rejects this claim by relying upon Callow. Final Act.
14-15. Therefore, for the reasons expressed, supra, regarding Rejection 6,
we also affirm Rejection 7.
DECISION
The objection is not sustained.
Rejections 2 and 3 are reversed.
Rejections 4-7 are affirmed.
18
Appeal2013-008403
Application 11/522,702
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
19