Ex Parte Gallop et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2018

14557175 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/557,175 12/01/2014
21186 7590 08/27/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Charles C. Gallop
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.
3097.018US1 1081
EXAMINER
ROYCE, LIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2018 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES C. GALLOP and KURT A. DIEKER
Appeal2017-008258
Application 14/557,175
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFERR. GUPTA, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We reverse.
Appeal2017-008258
Application 14/557,175
The invention is principally directed to a method of reducing an
amount of energy needed for processing streams in an agricultural
production facility wherein the method comprises using a rotary press to
produce a liquid with particles stream and insoluble solids. Claims 1, 10,
and 16 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced
below:
1. A method of reducing an amount of energy needed for
processing streams in an agricultural production facility, the
method comprising:
receiving a process stream of grain components, the
process stream including a mixture of liquids and suspended
solids;
separating the suspended solids from the liquids using a
paddle screen to form a liquid with insoluble solids stream, and
dewatering the liquid with the insoluble solids stream
post liquefaction by using a rotary press to produce 1) a liquid
with particles stream and 2) insoluble solids, which have a
solids content of about 10% to about 70% solids.
10. A method of reducing an amount of energy needed
for processing streams in an agricultural production facility, the
method comprising:
receiving liquids and suspended solids in a process
stream from the agricultural production facility; and
dewatering the liquids and suspended solids in the
process stream post liquefaction using a rotary press to produce
1) a liquid with particles stream and 2) insoluble solids having a
solids content of greater than about 25% solids.
2
Appeal2017-008258
Application 14/557,175
16. A method comprising:
receiving liquids and solids in a process stream up to
about 3 8% solids content; and
dewatering the liquids and solids in the process stream
post liquefaction using a rotary press to produce 1) a liquid with
particles stream having up to about 20% solids content and 2)
insoluble solids having less than about 55% solids content.
Appellant1 requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner's Final Action (see generally Appeal Brief):
I. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 16, 18, 19, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Lee '590 (US 2012/0244590 Al, published
September 27, 2012) and Hickey (US 2007/0254089 Al, published
November 1, 2007).
II. Claims 16, 18, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hickey, as evidenced by Lee '590.
III. Claims 10, 11, and 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lee '590, Hickey, and Scheimann (US 2006/0006116 Al,
published January 12, 2006).
IV. Claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable Hickey, as evidenced by Lee '590 and Scheimann.
V. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Lee '590, Hickey and Lee '596 (US 2010/0012596 Al, published
January 21, 2010).
1 Appellant is the Applicant ICM, Inc., also identified as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
3
Appeal2017-008258
Application 14/557,175
VI. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over
Hickey, Lee '590 and Lee '596.
VII. Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hickey, Lee '590, and Scheimann.
VIII. Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hickey and Lee '590.
OPINION
Prior Art Rejections
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 162
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we reverse the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-
11, 13-16, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(l) and 103 for the reasons
presented by the Appellant and add the following for emphasis.
We refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejections. Final Act. 4--14. All rejections tum on whether
the centrifuge of Lee '590 and the screw press of Hickey are rotary presses
as contended by the Examiner. See, for example, Final Act. 4, 11; Lee ,r 62;
Hickey ,r 12.
The Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The
Examiner must first interpret a claim before the claim can be compared to
the prior art. "[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re
2 Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 require the use of a rotary press.
Accordingly, we limit discussion to these claims.
4
Appeal2017-008258
Application 14/557,175
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of the
claims in patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the
claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.) (citations omitted); Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[T]he specification 'is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" (Citation omitted)).
According to the Examiner, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the claim term "rotary press" is to be interpreted literally as "a
press that rotates" because that is the structure claimed. Final Act. 2;
Ans. 13. Thus, the Examiner concludes that the centrifuge of Lee '590 and
the screw press of Hickey are rotary presses because the centrifuge of
Lee '590 rotates and dewaters by pressing on the inner wall by gravity force
(Final Act. 4; Lee '590 ,r 62) and the screw press of Hickey is a screw that
rotates (Final Act. 11; Hickey ,r 12).
However, as correctly noted by Appellant, the term "rotary press" is a
term of art that identifies a specific class of equipment as described in
paragraph 73 of the Specification. App. Br. 16. Moreover, the Specification
expressly distinguishes a centrifuge and a screw press from a rotary press by
listing each one of these devices as dewatering devices useful in the
described process. Spec. ,r 66. Thus, the Examiner does not establish that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "rotary press," in view of
5
Appeal2017-008258
Application 14/557,175
Specification, would encompass other pieces of equipment such as the
centrifuge of Lee '590 and the screw press of Hickey.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's prior art rejections of
claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(l) and 103
for the reasons presented by Appellant and given above.
DECISION
The Examiner's prior art rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
6