Ex Parte Foret

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2016

11784327 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

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.
11/784,327 04/05/2007 Todd Foret FPLB:1013 4699
34725 7590 03/31/2016
CHALKER FLORES, LLP
14951 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
JENNISON, BRIAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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 TODD FORET
____________

Appeal 2014-002646
Application 11/784,327
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and,
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Todd Foret (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7 and 9–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) and Couture
(US 6,355,178 B1, issued Mar. 12, 2002).2 Br. 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The Appeal Brief identifies the real party in interest as Foret Plasma Labs,
LLC. Br. 3.
2 Claims 8, 18, and 19 have been withdrawn from consideration, and thus,
are not before us as part of the present appeal. Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-002646
Application 11/784,327

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 4, and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A method for treating a liquid comprising the steps of:
providing an apparatus comprising (a) a hydro cyclone
having a side inlet, a lower outlet and an upper opening, (b) a
throat having a first opening and a second opening, wherein the
first opening is connected to the lower outlet of the hydro
cyclone, (c) a vortex finder attached to the upper opening of the
hydro cyclone such that the vortex finder extends into the hydro
cyclone, (d) an electrical connection attached to the vortex
finder such that the vortex finder is an anode, and (e) a plasma
torch attached to the vortex finder such that a central axis of the
plasma torch, a central axis of the vortex finder and a central
axis of the lower outlet are all aligned with one another;
flowing the liquid into the side inlet of the hydro cyclone
and through the hydro cyclone such that the liquid cools the
anode and exits through the lower outlet; and
turning on the plasma torch such that a plasma arc
irradiates the liquid.
Br. 18 (Claims App.).

ANALYSIS
Figure 13 of Appellant’s application shows several prior art
hydrocyclones. See Spec. 6, l. 30. The Examiner provided an annotated
version of Fig. 13A (i.e., the left hydrocyclone shown in Fig. 13). Final Act.
2. The Examiner found that this hydrocyclone includes all of the limitations
of claims 1, 4, and 9, except for the plasma torch. Id. at 3. The Examiner
found that Figure 14 of Couture discloses a wire inside a vortex, “which is
induced with a charge making it a torch or anode.” Id. (citing Couture, col.
1, ll. 15–20 and 35–40, col. 5, l. 64–col. 6, l. 2). The Examiner concluded
that it would have been obvious “to adapt [AAPA] in view of Couture to
Appeal 2014-002646
Application 11/784,327

3
provide the plasma torch which is powered by electrical current for creating
an arc within a container and treating materials at a high temperature.” Id.
(emphasis added).
Figure 14 of Couture teaches a system to charge particles in a gas
cyclone or liquid hydrocyclone. See Couture, col. 2, ll. 60–62. Couture
explains that the term “hydrocyclones” applies to devices that separate based
on liquid-density differences, and the term “cyclones” applies to devices that
are used to separate particles from a gas. See id. at col. 1, ll. 16–22. The
cyclone shown in Figure 14 of Couture includes a charged corona wire
extending along the vertical axis of the cyclone, and having an exposed
portion to charge particles that pass by the corona wire to provide particle
separation. See id. at col. 5, ll. 48–56.
Appellant contends that AAPA and Couture do not disclose or suggest
“a plasma torch attached to the vortex finder [] aligned with one another”
and that “the liquid cools the anode.” Br. 11. These limitations are recited
in each independent claim. Appellant contends that Couture instead
discloses an electrostatic charge generator to separate fluids and particles by
adding a charge to the particles, causing them to be attracted to a lower
portion of the device. Id. at 12 (citing Couture, col. 4, ll. 8–14). According
to Appellant, introducing a charge with a corona wire in Couture does not
transform the corona wire into a plasma torch, having a very different
construction and effect from a corona wire. Id. Appellant also contends that
Couture’s corona wire does not generate heat that is transferred to an anode,
and so there is no need to cool the anode in Couture. Id. Appellant adds that
a plasma arc from a plasma torch would burn, combust, or incinerate the
particles that Couture is trying to separate. Id.
Appeal 2014-002646
Application 11/784,327

4
Appellant notes correctly that Couture does not describe the term
“plasma torch,” or generating a plasma arc within the hydrocyclone. Br. 14.
Couture does not describe that the corona wire located within the cyclone
shown in Figure 14 generates a “plasma arc.” In fact, the term “plasma” is
used in Couture only in the following description pertaining to a particle
“precharger”:
The inventors tested the above proposition and it tested
positive in field tests both with gaseous cyclones and liquid
hydrocyclones. With gaseous cyclones, the use of a precharger
is preferred. The precharger can be manufactured in many
ways such as thin plates, a metal grid system or if it is safe and
there is no danger of explosion one could have various plasma
arcs putting charges on the particles.
Couture, col. 5, l. 63–col. 6, l. 2 (emphasis added).
This passage in Couture does not indicate that the particle precharger
used to provide “various plasma arcs putting charges on the particles” in
gaseous cyclones would necessarily be, or even include, a plasma torch, as
claimed. Nor has the Examiner established that the particle precharger
would be aligned with the vortex finder or lower outlet, as claimed. In fact,
the Examiner has not made any findings in this regard.
Appellant points out that Figure 15 of Couture shows a precharger
located outside of the hydrocyclone. Br. 14. This figure shows a particle
precharger located to one side of the cyclone, rather than in alignment with
the vortex finder or lower outlet, as claimed. Couture, col. 5, ll. 59–62; Fig.
15. Based on this location of the precharger, Appellant contends that
“Couture teaches against the use of plasma arcs within the hydrocyclone.”
Id. (emphasis added).
Appeal 2014-002646
Application 11/784,327

5
In contrast to locating the particle precharger outside the cyclone in
Couture, claim 1 recites “a vortex finder [that] extends into the
hydrocyclone,” “a plasma torch attached to the vortex finder such that a
central axis of the plasma torch, a central axis of the vortex finder and a
central axis of the lower outlet are all aligned with one another,” “flowing
the liquid . . . through the hydrocyclone such that the liquid cools the
anode,” and “turning on the plasma torch such that a plasma arc irradiates
the liquid.” Accordingly, the method of claim 1 comprises irradiating the
liquid with the plasma arc produced by the plasma torch inside the
hydrocyclone. Claims 4 and 19 recite limitations similar to these in claim 1.
See Br. 18–21 (Claims App.).
Appellant also contends that even if Couture were interpreted to mean
that plasma arcs could be used to charge particles, Couture still would
merely teach locating the plasma at the inlet of the hydrocyclone, and thus,
the plasma arc would only precharge the particles. Br. 14. Appellant adds
that this interpretation does not teach or suggest “attaching a plasma torch to
the vortex such that a plasma arc irradiates the liquid within the
hydrocy[c]lone and the liquid is used to cool the anode.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “[a]lthough Couture does not specifically
state a plasma torch, to create a plasma arc some sort of plasma torch must
be used.” Ans. 4 (emphasis added). According to the Examiner, “[t]his
suggests the use of a plasma torch with a hydrocyclone.” Id. The Examiner
explains that “Couture is merely relied upon to show that it is known in the
art to use a plasma torch with a hydrocyclone.” Id.
The Examiner’s position appears to be that Couture’s disclosure of a
“plasma arc” is necessarily a disclosure of use of a “plasma torch.”
Appeal 2014-002646
Application 11/784,327

6
However, Couture provides no disclosure that the corona wire located inside
a cyclone produces a plasma arc. In addition, the Examiner has not
established, with evidence, that a plasma arc can only be created by a plasma
torch. Couture does not support this position, and the Examiner has not
relied on any other evidence to show that, although Couture does not
describe a “plasma torch,” Couture necessarily discloses this claimed
element, just because Couture discloses the use of plasma arcs to put charges
on particles as part of a precharger. See Ans. 4. The Examiner has not
explained sufficiently how a plasma arc that puts charges on particles, just
like the thin plates or metal grid system (Couture, col. 5, l. 65–col. 6, l. 12),
necessarily discloses a plasma torch, which Appellants describe as creating
an ionized gas. Spec. 9, ¶ 25. Consequently, the Examiner’s finding that
Couture “show[s] that it is known in the art to use a plasma torch with a
hydrocyclone” is not supported by sufficient evidence.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–
17 as unpatentable over AAPA and Couture is not supported by sufficient
evidence. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–7 and 9–17 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED