Ex Parte HEIDENREICH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13959909 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/959,909 08/06/2013 Steffen HEIDENREICH
23548 7590 08/23/2018
LEYDIG VOIT & MA YER, LTD
700 THIRTEENTH ST. NW
SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3960
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.
713910 8684
EXAMINER
ANBACHT, BRIT ELIZA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1776
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
DCpatent@leydig.com
Chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEFFEN HEIDENREICH
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959 ,909
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant (hereinafter "Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 3-5,
9-15, 17, 19, 21, and 26-29. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Pall Corporation, which, according to the
Brief, is the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed April 18, 2017
(hereinafter "Appeal Br.") 1 ).
2 Appeal Br. 4--13; Reply Brief filed August 3, 2017 (hereinafter "Reply
Br.") 2-5; Final Office Action entered January 19, 2017 (hereinafter "Final
Act.") 2-22; Examiner's Answer entered June 20, 2017 (hereinafter "Ans.")
2-16.
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a filter system comprising
filter modules for gas filtration (Specification filed August 6, 2013
(hereinafter "Spec.") ,r 2). According to the Appellant, "[t]he key element of
the present invention resides in the honeycomb structure of filter elements
and regularly interposed clean gas ducts provided with a clean gas collecting
and discharge arrangement extending across all of the clean gas outlets of
the clean gas ducts" (id. ,r 12). Figure IA, reproduced below from the
Drawings filed August 6, 2013, is illustrative of a filter module in
accordance with the invention:
/40
,.-----.. ~·
___ ,/14
FIG.lA
Figure IA above depicts a filter module 10 comprising one block-shaped
unit 12 with a plurality of filter elements 14 having a longitudinal, porous
tubular wall part 16 with an open end 18 and a closed end 20 and arranged in
2
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
a checkerboard pattern together with a plurality of clean gas ducts 22, which
are open at one end 24 and closed at the other end 26 (Spec. ,r,r 51-52). As
shown in the drawing, the filter module 10 has an upstream or feed side
surface 28 through which raw gas enters into the open ends 18, penetrates
the porous tubular wall parts 16 into clean gas ducts 22, and discharges at
the discharge side surface 30 (id. ,r 53).
Representative claim 15 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 15), with key limitations emphasized, as
follows:
15. A filter system comprising a housing comprising a raw gas
and a clean gas chamber as well as two or more filter
modules for gas filtration, each filter module comprising a
feed side and a discharge side, and comprising a plurality
of block-shaped units, each unit comprising
a plurality of filter elements each having a
longitudinal, porous tubular wall part having an
open first end serving as a raw gas inlet and a closed
second end, each tubular wall part having a length
of about 10 mm to about 300 mm; wherein said
filter elements are arranged coextensive and in
parallel orientation with their tubular wall parts,
their open ends being all located on one side of the
filter module serving as a feed side thereof, and
a plurality of clean gas ducts which are substantially
coextensive with, oriented parallel to, and regularly
interposed between the filter elements, the clean gas
ducts being open at one end forming a clean gas
outlet and closed at their opposite end, whereas the
closed ends of the clean gas ducts are located at the
feed side of the filter module, and whereas their
open ends are located adjacent to the discharge side
of the filter module opposite to the feed side of the
filter module;
wherein said open ends of the filter elements and
said closed ends of the clean gas ducts form a feed
3
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
side surface of a block-shaped unit, and wherein
said open ends of the clean gas ducts and said closed
ends of the filter elements form a discharge side
surface of a block-shaped unit;
each said filter module further comprising at the discharge
side a separate clean gas collecting and discharge
arrangement extending across all of the clean gas outlets
of the clean gas ducts of the block-shaped units and
providing a clean gas discharge opening for the filter
module, said clean gas collecting and discharge
arrangement comprising one or more clean gas channels
in fluid communication with said clean gas outlets of the
clean gas ducts deflecting and directing the clean gas flow
from the open ends of the clean gas ducts in a direction
transverse to a vertical of the discharge side surface,
wherein the one or more channels of the clean gas
collecting and discharge arrangement have a height,
measured as a clearance in the direction of the vertical
of the discharge side surface of the block-shaped units,
in the range of from about 0.3 to about 0.5 times the
length of the tubular wall parts of the filter elements,
said housing comprising an interior space separated into a raw
gas and a clean gas chamber,
said filter modules being arranged within said interior
space, the feed side of the modules oriented substantially
vertical, said feed sides of the filter modules being in fluid
communication with the raw gas chamber and said clean
gas discharge opening(s) of the filter modules being in
fluid communication with the clean gas chamber of the
housing, the system comprising a back-pulse arrangement.
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
A. Claims 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 26-29 as
4
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
unpatentable over Cutler et al. 3 (hereinafter "Cutler") in view of
Kuivalainen; 4
B. Claim 11 as unpatentable over Cutler, Kuivalainen, and
Matsumoto; 5
C. Claim 13 as unpatentable over Cutler, Kuivalainen, and Lippert
et al. 6 (hereinafter "Lippert"); and
D. Claim 14 as unpatentable over Cutler, Kuivalainen, and Ishii et
al. 7 (hereinafter "Ishii").
(Ans. 3-16; Final Act. 2-21.)
III. DISCUSSION
The Appellant submits arguments according to four groups of claims
as follows: (1) claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 26-29; (2)
claim 5; (3) claim 11; and (4) claim 14 (Appeal Br. 4). For the first group,
we confine our discussion to claim 15, which we select as representative
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). All other claims within the group
stand or fall with claim 15.
Claim 15. The Examiner finds that Cutler describes two
embodiments relevant to the invention recited in claim 15 (Ans. 3).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Cutler discloses a honeycomb filter
including most of the limitations recited in claim 15 except: (i) the reference
3 US 2002/0073666 Al, published June 20, 2002.
4 US 5,318,755, issued June 7, 1994.
5 US 4,205,969, issued June 3, 1980.
6 US 6,312,490 Bl, issued November 6, 2001.
7 US 4,925,561, issued May 15, 1990.
5
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
teaches a filter module containing only one block-shaped unit; (ii) the
reference teaches a filter element having a preferred length of 7 6.2 mm to
203.2 mm rather than "about 10 mm to about 300 mm" as specified in the
claim; (iii) the reference does not explicitly disclose the clean gas collecting
and discharge arrangement's height clearance dimensional relationship
specified in the claim-i.e., "about 0.3 to about 0.5 times the length of the
tubular wall parts of the filter elements"; and (iv) the reference does not
teach "a back-pulse arrangement" (id. at 3-7).
Regarding the first difference, the Examiner finds that duplication of
parts to increase filtration capacity would have been within the level of the
ordinary skill in the art and, therefore, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art (id. at 4--5). Regarding the tubular wall part length limitation ("about
10 mm to about 300 mm"), the Examiner concludes that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have discovered an optimum or workable
range that includes length values within the range recited in claim 15 in view
of the overlap between the range disclosed in the prior art and the range
recited in the claim (id. at 5). Regarding the clearance limitation ("about 0.3
to about 0.5 times the length of the tubular wall parts of the filter elements"),
the Examiner states "merely determining the size of the outlet to
accommodate a desired flow would [have been] obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art ... so as to obtain a desired fluid flow and pressure loss" (id.
at 6). Regarding the "back-pulse arrangement" limitation, the Examiner
finds that Kuivalainen teaches back-pulsing nozzles to clean a filter bank
and, therefore, "[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art ... to modify Cutler to include a back-pulsing arrangement as taught
by Kuivalainen, since ... such a modification would clean the filter while
6
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
preventing damage thereto as may occur during a thermal cleaning
[ disclosed in Cutler]" (id. at 7).
The Appellant's principal argument is that "Cutler simply does not
consider using the geometry of the filter modules to improve the back-
flushing properties of the modules in a system in order to facilitate
regeneration of the filter modules after a certain time of operation" (Appeal
Br. 5). According to the Appellant, "Cutler does not, and cannot, provide a
teaching as to how to improve the filter system in order to promote back
flushing, as Cutler relies on a different mechanism for regeneration:
combustion of the particulate matter deposited on the filter elements" (id.).
For the reasons given by the Examiner and below, the Appellant's
principal argument fails to reveal any reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Cutler's Figures 4A and 4B are reproduced as follows:
FIG. 4A
10~ 28
12
24
26
7
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
FIG. 4B
28
21
14 21 30
16
Cutler's Figures 4A and 4B above depict a filter 10 designed to remove
particulates (soot) from a diesel engine's exhaust, wherein the filter 10
includes two end-plugged honeycombs 12 and 14 housed in an enclosure 16
and the flows of exhaust gas, separated by a panel 22, are indicated by
arrows (Cutler ,r,r 2, 30-32). Although Cutler's Figures 4A and 4B show
honeycomb structures oriented in a configuration parallel to the gas flow,
Cutler teaches that the structures may alternatively be oriented
perpendicularly to the gas flow (id. claim 8; Figs. 5A and 5B; ,r 36).
Regarding suitable dimensions, Cutler teaches that the "[ f]iltering
system 10 may have any length desired or required by the exhaust system
chosen" and that "[t]he individual honeycombs may be of equal length or
have differing lengths, and may be of any size as long as the system
dimensions are met" (id. ,r 34). Specifically, Cutler teaches that the filtering
system 10 preferably has a length of at least 20.32 cm (203.2 mm), although
the length may be as short as 7.62 cm (76.2 mm), and adds further that "[t]he
individual honeycomb structures can be equal in length or have different
8
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
lengths" (id. ,r 41 ). In this regard, Cutler teaches that filters are "designed to
provide for nearly complete filtration of soot without significantly
hindering the exhaust flow" (id. ,r 3; emphasis added). In addition, Cutler
teaches that "long filters experience a higher pressure drop, increased
occurrence of radial or ring-off breaks due to thermal gradients and are also
difficult to manufacture and package" (id. ,r 6).
Thus, consistent with the Examiner's position (Ans. 6-7, 14--15), a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have drawn a reasonable
inference from Cutler's teachings as a whole that the dimensions of the
honeycomb structures (including the length of each tube) and the clearance
for filtered gas flow are result-effective variables that affect performance
variables such as filtration capacity, flow rate, and pressure drop. 8 Based on
Cutler's teachings, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
arrived at workable or even optimum ranges of dimensions for the filter
components, and thus, clearance to tube length ratios falling within the range
recited in claim 15, by routine experimentation. In re Applied Materials,
Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("'[W]here the general conditions
of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."' ( quoting In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456 (CCPA 1955))).
The Appellant's argument that "Cutler simply does not consider using
the geometry of the filter modules to improve the back-flushing properties of
the modules in a system in order to facilitate regeneration of the filter
8 See, e.g., In re Preda, 401 F .2d 825, 826 ( CCP A 1968) ("[I]n considering
the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.").
9
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
modules after a certain time of operation" (Appeal Br. 5; see also id. at 5---6)
is inapposite because, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 14), the Appellant fails to
identify evidence demonstrating that the dimensional characteristics recited
in claim 15 provide any benefit or improvement over the prior art, let alone
an unexpected benefit or improvement in terms of back-flushing. Though
Cutler teaches regenerating the filter by combusting filtered carbon soot at
high temperatures (id. ,r,r 4, 48), rather than by a back-pulse arrangement
(back-flushing) as specified in claim 15, we detect no error in the
Examiner's reliance on Kuivalainen (Ans. 7) and, therefore, adopt it as our
own. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill.").
The Appellant argues that "despite the differences of the embodiments
taught by Cutler (Figs. 4A-4B versus Figs. 5A-5A), the Office Action mixes
their elements and functions randomly as the basis for rejecting the pending
claims" (Appeal Br. 6). That argument also fails because "when a patent
'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection as maintained
against claim 15.
Claim 5. Claim 5, which depends from claim 15, recites that "the
tubular wall parts in each filter module have a cross-sectional area
corresponding to the area of a square with an edge length of about 3 to about
10
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
20 mm" (Appeal Br. 14). The Examiner finds that, based on certain
calculations using information given by Cutler, the equivalent area per cell
would be 2-67 mm2 rather than 9-400 mm2 derived from the specified
square edge length of "about 3 to about 20 mm" (Ans. 8) (relying on Cutler
if 43).
The Appellant does not contest the Examiner's calculations (Appeal
Br. 10). Rather, the Appellant argues that "the [Examiner] fails to explain
how and why this would be optimized to provide the claimed range" (id.).
Consistent with the Examiner's position (Ans. 8-9), "[a] primafacie
case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed [invention]
overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Therefore, we also uphold the rejection maintained against claim 5.
Claim 11. Claim 11, which also depends from claim 15, recites
"wherein the tubular wall parts of the filter elements in each filter module
are arranged with respect to a vertical of the feed side surface of each filter
module at an angle of from about 10° to about 60°" (Appeal Br. 14).
Relying on Matsumoto, the Examiner concludes that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify the angular
orientation of Cutler's cells as shown in Matsumoto to improve filtration
efficiency (Ans. 11-12).
The Appellant argues that "[t]he fact that Matsumoto may teach
honeycomb cells which are angularly inclined relative to the air flow
direction is of no import" (Appeal Br. 10). In the Appellant's view,
"Matsumoto teaches several inclinations of walls set in different angles to
11
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
the feed side, resulting in a complicated pathway for the fluid that would
increase the pressure drop such that the arrangement would not be suitable
for regeneration by back-pulsing" (id.). Furthermore, the Appellant argues
that Matsumoto discloses "flimsy materials" that are not suitable for back-
flushing (id.).
We agree with the Examiner's position on this matter (Final Act.
3--4). Moreover, claim 11 does not specify any limitation as to pressure
drop, and nothing substantiates the unsupported argument that Matsumoto's
polymeric filter media would be unsuitable for all back-flushing conditions.
In any event, the Examiner's rejection is not premised on incorporating
Matsumoto's filter media into Cutler.
1 1.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection maintained against claim
Claim 14. Claim 14, which also depends from claim 15, recites:
wherein the one or more channels of the clean gas collecting and
discharge arrangement in each filter module are closed at one end
and open at the opposite end that receives clean gas and have a
cross-sectional area which increases from the closed end of the
channel(s) to the open, opposite end of the channel(s).
The Examiner determines (Ans. 14):
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art ... to modify the honeycomb filter of Cutlter in view of
Kuivalainen to have triangular cross-sectional channels as taught
by Ishii, since Ishii states at column 1 lines 60-64 that such a
modification would provide a filter which is compact in size but
has a large filtering area.
The Appellant argues that "Ishii teaches filter elements and ducts
which have decreasing and increasing cross-sections in a direction from the
raw gas to the clean gas side, as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2" (Appeal Br. 11 ).
12
Appeal2017-010509
Application 13/959,909
According to the Appellant, "claim 14 requires that the clean gas collecting
and discharge arrangement which receives the clean gas from the clean gas
ducts is provided with a cross-sectional area increasing from the closed end
to the open end thereof, which is the opposite of the arrangement in Ishii"
(id. at 12).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 14, however, includes
the channels defined by the triangular openings shown on the outlet side of
Ishii. Moreover, the outlet configuration shown in Cutler also meets the
claim limitations, as broadly recited.
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner's rejection as to claim 14.
IV. SUMMARY
Rejections A through Dare sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's
final decision to reject claims 3-5, 9-15, 17, 19, 21, and 26-29 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).
AFFIRMED
13