Ex Parte Glover

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 9, 2011

09320950 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JOHN N. GLOVER
________________

Appeal 2011-005284
Application 09/320,950
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 59, 61-67 and 69-
95. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 59 is illustrative:
59. A method of fluid distribution in a chemical reactor comprising the
steps of:

providing a layer of a plurality of ceramic filter units, at least some of
the ceramic filter units including a body having a substantially annular outer
peripheral shape, a central opening extending through the body, and at least
three elliptical openings extending through the body and positioned between
Appeal 2011-005284
Application 09/320,950

2
the central opening and an outer periphery of the body so that a combination
of the central opening and the at least three elliptical openings define a
plurality of fluid flow passageways extending through the at least some of
the plurality of ceramic filter units;

contacting an organic-based feed stream with the layer of the plurality
of ceramic filter units; and

subdividing the organic-based feed stream into a plurality of smaller
fluid streams by passing the organic-based feed stream through the plurality
of fluid flow passageways prior to the organic-based feed stream contacting
a catalyst bed in the chemical reactor.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims (Ans. 3):
Kramer 4,615,796 Oct. 7, 1986
Hung GE 3,539,195 May 7, 1986

Temple H. Fay, A Three-Point Generalization of the Ellipse, in 33
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology
Issue 1, 111-123 (2002).

James W. Fulton, CE Refresher, Catalyst Engineering, Part 2: Selecting the
Catalyst Configuration, in Chemical Engineering 97-101 (1986).

Ivars Peterson, The Mathematical Association of America, Beyond the
Ellipse (Sept. 2, 1996), http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathland_9_2.html
(hereafter “Peterson”).

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of fluid
distribution in a chemical reactor that provides a plurality of ceramic filter
units through which the feed passes before contacting a catalyst bed. Most
claims on appeal define the filter units as having a central opening and at
least three additional elliptical openings between the central opening and the
Appeal 2011-005284
Application 09/320,950

3
periphery of the filter unit. Appealed claim 89 does not require a central
opening in the filter unit.
Claims 82-88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
written description requirement. The appealed claims stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 59, 61-67, 69-85, 94 and 95 over Kramer in view of Fulton,
(b) claims 59, 61-67, 69-85, 94 and 95 over Kramer in view of Fulton
and Hung,
(c) claims 59, 61-67, 69-85, 94 and 95 over Kramer in view of Fulton
and asserted admitted prior art (APA),
(d) claims 86-93 over Kramer in view of Fulton, and
(e) claims 86-93 over Kramer in view of Fulton and the asserted
admitted prior art.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective position advanced by
Appellant and the Examiner. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement
with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejections are not sustainable.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 82-88 under
§ 112, first paragraph. According to the Examiner, the originally filed
application does not describe the corners of the filter units as “sharp”. We
agree with Appellant, however, that the drawings of the original
Specification reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that filter
units having sharp corners were in the possession of Appellant at the time of
filing the present Application. See, for example, Figs. 6-11 and 13. Also, as
pointed out by Appellant, Fulton and Hung, cited by the Examiner, use the
language “sharp corners” to describe filter units which have peripheries
similar in shape to those of the presently claimed invention.
Appeal 2011-005284
Application 09/320,950

4
The Examiner also maintains that the language of claims 86-88 does
not have original descriptive support, namely, “a central opening extending
through the body, and at least three trisoid-shaped openings extending
through the body and positioned between the central opening and an outer
periphery of the body”. However, paragraph [0059] of the original
Specification describes a ceramic filter unit 15 having a circular shape and at
least some elliptical shaped openings, and that “[t]risoidal shaped openings
87 may also be used (FIG. 14)”. We find that this portion of the
Specification fairly describes filter units having a circular shape that may
have either elliptical shaped openings 88 or trisoidal shaped openings 87.
We do not subscribe to the Examiner’s position that the trisoidal shaped
openings are only described for filter units having no central opening.
Turning to the § 103 rejections, we do not agree with the Examiner
that Fulton would have suggested modifying Kramer such that the
particularly disclosed filter units are replaced with filter units having the
claimed configurations. Kramer is directed to filtering guard beds having
diminishing diameters in the downward direction in order to protect the
underlying catalyst bed from incoming solids in the feed. Kramer discloses
that the guard beds preferably comprise spent catalyst particulate material,
and that spherical particles are very much preferred, although “the guard bed
particles can be in other configurations” (col. 4, ll. 3-4). Kramer provides no
teaching that the particles of the guard beds may have a configuration that
remotely resembles the claimed configurations. Also, Appellant has
presented objective evidence that configurations within the scope of the
appealed claims provide a design advantage that achieves superior lateral
fluid distribution compared to other configurations.
Appeal 2011-005284
Application 09/320,950

5
Fulton discloses porous catalyst particles having configurations
similar to those claimed. However, Fulton sets forth no teaching that the
illustrated catalysts can be effectively used in guard beds of the type
disclosed by Kramer which are situated over catalyst beds. Indeed, as noted
by Appellant, Fulton provides a teaching away of using catalyst structures
having sharp corners which would crumble in service and plug the spaces
between catalyst particles. Hence, while one of ordinary skill in the art
could have tried to use the catalyst configurations depicted by Fulton in the
guard beds of Kramer, the Examiner has not established that the prior art
would have provided the suggestion or motivation to do so with the requisite
reasonable expectation of success.
Finally, the asserted APA does not alleviate the deficiency of the
combination of Kramer and Fulton set forth above. In addition, Appellant
has provided declaration evidence that the characterization of the ceramic
wagon wheel unit as prior art was mistaken.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejections.

REVERSED

ssl