Ex Parte Gallop et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 201814557175 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation