12593486 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016)

Ex Parte Gross et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 20, 2016

12593486 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/593,486 11130/2009 Gerhard Gross 40582 7590 07/22/2016 American Air Liquide, Inc. Intellectual Property Department 9811 Katy Freeway Suite 100 Houston, TX 77024 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. Serie 7462 6044 EXAMINER TEITELBAUM, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2016 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): IP-USOffice@airliquide.com Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com J us tin.Murray@airliquide.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GERHARD GROSS, JOHANNES BEUSE, THOMAS KUTZ, FRIEDEL THEISSEN, and MARC SPORING Appeal2014-002868 Application 12/593,486 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Gerhard Gross et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 16, 17, 19-29, and 31. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Claims 1-15, 18, and 30 are canceled. Br. 15-16 (Claims App.). Appeal2014-002868 Application 12/593,486 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 16, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 16. A method for producing concrete comprising: a) cooling a liquid in which a coolant comprising a refrigeration-liquefied gas is introduced into the liquid to a point [at] which a suspension of frozen liquid in liquid is achieved, said liquid being process water, and b) using the cooled process water in the production of concrete, wherein the refrigeration-liquefied gas is introduced in drop form into the liquid. Br. 15 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS I. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, i-f 4. Final Act. 2. II. Claims 16, 17, 19-28, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stowasser et al. (US 3,771,718, iss. Nov. 13, 1973 "Stowasser") and Machida et al. (US 2006/0266078 Al, pub. Nov. 30, 2006 "Machida"). Id. at 2-3. III. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stowasser, Machida, and Glasser (US 5,402,649, iss. Apr. 4, 1995). Id. at 8. OPINION Rejection I Appellants do not refute the rejection of claim 19, which depends from canceled claim 18. We therefore summarily sustain Rejection I. 2 Appeal2014-002868 Application 12/593,486 Rejections II and III The only issue in this case is whether Stowasser and Machida are analogous art. Br. 12-13. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, the classification of prior art references provide some evidence of whether art is analogous. See In re Ellis, 476 F.2d 1370, 1372 (CCPA 1973). The Examiner appears to contend that Stowasser and Machida are in the same field of endeavor, and are reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by Appellants, although the Examiner's contentions regarding the field of endeavor are more numerous. The Examiner defines the field of endeavor as "refrigeration" and the uniform distribution of nitrogen for cooling. Ans. 9. Stowasser, like Appellants' invention, is directed to generating chilled water for concrete and Machida is directed to generating slushed nitrogen for cooling in "various industries" by injecting liquid nitrogen having a uniform particle size. Machida provides such liquid nitrogen cooling with "an inexpensive apparatus and method." Machida i-f 31. According to the Examiner, while the references may have differing intended uses, they both are directed to the uniform distribution of liquid nitrogen, and "are clearly within the same field of endeavor." Ans. 9. The Examiner additionally notes that Stowasser and Machida are "classified in the same technology in 3 Appeal2014-002868 Application 12/593,486 the United States Patent Classification (USPC), i.e. Class 62 - Refrigeration." Id. Appellants argue that the patents are not in the same field of endeavor because Stowasser is directed to generating chilled water for concrete production, whereas Machida is directed to generating slush nitrogen for superconductivity and space industries. Br. 12-13. Appellants contend that categorizing Stowasser and Machida as in the field of refrigeration is "disingenuous." Id. at 13. Appellants further argue that one skilled in the art of concrete production would not look to Machida, which does not involve water or concrete. Id. We are not persuaded. Appellants have not apprised us of why one skilled in the art of cooling water, and particularly cooling water using injection of liquid nitrogen as Appellants and Stowasser disclose, would not look to other liquid nitrogen injection cooling systems and methods to improve their product or solve a problem. Given that Machida discloses that "[l]iquid nitrogen is used as a non-flammable and portable cold source in various industries," and discusses spraying liquid nitrogen and using nozzle diameter and pressure to maintain droplet form and uniform droplet diameter (Machida i-fi-12, 13), Appellants have not demonstrated why one skilled in the art of cooling water for use in concrete production would not look to other multi-industry nitrogen cooling systems such as Machida's to improve their product. DECISION The pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 112 and 103(a) are AFFIRMED. 4 Appeal2014-002868 Application 12/593,486 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5