Ex Parte Green

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 15, 2007

10865666 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 15, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARTIN C. GREEN
____________

Appeal 2007-1562
Application 10/865,666
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: August 15, 2007
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, 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 11-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant's invention relates to an apparatus for producing carbon
black. According to Appellant, the apparatus of the present invention
produces carbon black wherein the introduction of additional oxidant and/or
hydrocarbon containing fluid streams into the effluent increases the structure
Appeal 2007-1562
Application 10/865,666

of the carbon black (Br. 8). Representative independent claim 11, as
presented in the Brief, appears below:
11. A modular apparatus for producing carbon black
comprising:
a combustion zone having an upstream and a downstream
end and at least one port to allow the introduction of a fuel and an
oxidant;
a zone of converging diameter having an upstream and a
downstream end and converging from the upstream end towards
the downstream end, the upstream end being connected to the
downstream end of the combustion zone;
a transition zone having an upstream and a downstream end,
the upstream end being connected to the downstream end of the
zone of converging diameter, the transition including at least one
port to allow the introduction of a feedstock;
an apparatus for introducing a fluid stream into the reactor in
a direction axial to the flow of a process stream in the reactor, the
apparatus having an upstream and a downstream end, the upstream
end being connected to the downstream end of the transition zone;
a reaction zone having an upstream and a downstream end,
the upstream end being connected to the downstream end of the
transition zone or zones;
a quench zone having an upstream and a downstream end,
the upstream end being connected to the downstream end of the
reaction zone, the quench zone including at least one port to allow
the introduction of a quenching fluid; and
apparatus for separating and collecting carbon black
connected to the downstream end of the quench zone or zones.

The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Henderson US 4,664,901 May 12, 1987

2
Appeal 2007-1562
Application 10/865,666

Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Henderson; claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Henderson.1
The anticipation rejection
Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Henderson.
Anticipation under § 102 requires that the identical invention that is
claimed was previously known to others and thus is not new. Scripps Clinic
& Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18
USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780, 227 USPQ 773, 777- 78 (Fed. Cir. 1985);
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The issue presented for review with respect to this rejection is: Does
the Henderson reference have a disclosure that anticipates the claimed
subject matter? The issue turns on whether Henderson describes an
apparatus that comprises the introduction of a fluid stream connected to the
downstream end of a transition zone. Regarding claims 12 and 13 the issue
turns on whether Henderson describes an inlet and outlet for fluid streams
arranged as specified by the claims. We answer these questions in the
affirmative.

1 We have considered the Appellant’s position presented in the Brief filed
September 25, 2006, and in the Reply Brief filed February 5, 2007.
Appellant contends that the claims on appeal should not stand or fall
together (Br. 5). We will consider the claims separately to the extent upon
which they have been argued in the Briefs.
3
Appeal 2007-1562
Application 10/865,666

Appellant argues that Henderson does not anticipate the claimed
invention because the claimed invention requires the introduction of the
fluid stream from an apparatus connected to the downstream end of the
transition zone while Figure 2 of the reference depicts the introduction of the
oxygen containing gas at a location immediately downstream from a series
of expansion and choke zones (Br. 12). Regarding claim 12, Appellant
argues that the apparatus comprises a hollow vessel having at least one inlet
for introducing a fluid stream into the interior of the vessel and the outlet to
allow the fluid stream to exit the vessel. Appellant asserts that Henderson
does not teach or suggest the hollow vessel having an inlet and outlet as
required by claim 12 (Br. 14-15). Regarding claim 13, Appellant asserts that
Henderson does not describe a hollow vessel having an annular outlet as
required by claim 13.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner found that
Henderson describes a modular apparatus for producing carbon black that
comprises all of the reaction zones specified by the claimed invention
(Answer 3). The Examiner refers to the similarity of the Figure 1 and Figure
2 apparatuses. Henderson discloses that the reactors depicted in Figures 1
and 2 are the same except for the opposing views of the reactor (Henderson,
col. 3, ll. 28-33). The reactor of Figure 1 includes element 30 which is a
means for introducing feedstock into the reactor (Henderson, col. 4, ll. 31-
40). Regarding claims 12 and 13, Henderson discloses the reactor comprises
a means 66 for introduction of gases through annular wall 68 into vanes 64
that are positioned in the perimeter walls of the pyrolysis zone. The vanes
function to direct the oxygen containing gas around the perimeter of the
pyrolysis zone (Henderson, col. 7, ll. 47-68). Thus, the Examiner properly
4
Appeal 2007-1562
Application 10/865,666

concluded that Henderson describes an apparatus that comprises the
introduction of a fluid stream connected to the downstream end of the
transition zone and meets the limitations of the claimed invention
(Answer 3).
The obviousness rejection.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Henderson. We affirm.
Appellant asserts that Henderson does not teach or suggest a
modular apparatus that comprises an inlet disposed substantially parallel to
the outlet (Br. 16).
Claim 14 specifies the inlet port is disposed substantially parallel to
the outlet. The Examiner recognizes that Henderson does not teach this
arrangement. However, the Examiner contends that arranging the inlet to be
parallel to the reactor would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art (Answer 3-4). In other words, it is the Examiner’s position that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient abilities to arrange
the shape of the fluid stream inlet.
Appellant did not refute the Examiner’s position in the responsive
Brief. We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have sufficient skill to select the desired arrangement for the inlet into
the vessel. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the
examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a
conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
5
Appeal 2007-1562
Application 10/865,666

in a particular reference.’”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07,
160 USPQ 809, 811-812 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account
not only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . .”).
As a final point with respect to the § 103 rejection, we note that Appellant
bases no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as
unexpected results.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented in the Answer, we
affirm the rejection.

ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-14 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

sld

MARTHA ANN FINNEGAN, ESQ.
CABOT CORPORATION
157 CONCORD ROAD
BILLERICA, MA 01821-7001
6