Ex Parte Jibb et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2014

11605697 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/605,697 11/30/2006 Richard John Jibb 21642 7751
27182 7590 11/19/2014
PRAXAIR, INC.
LAW DEPARTMENT - M1-04
39 OLD RIDGEBURY ROAD
DANBURY, CT 06810-5113
EXAMINER
ABDUR RAHIM, AZIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD JOHN JIBB
and JOHN HENRI ROYAL
____________________

Appeal 2012-008510
Application 11/605,697
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1–5. App. Br. 5. Claims 6–10 are withdrawn. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-008510
Application 11/605,697

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. An arrangement of insulation within a container
having an internal positive pressure to prevent heat leakage
from the ambient to an apparatus located within the container
and designed to operate at a cryogenic temperature, said
arrangement of insulation comprising:
bulk insulation filling said container;
an insulation layer located within the container,
between the apparatus and the container, the insulation layer
having a thermal conductivity lower than that of the bulk
insulation;
an exterior region of the apparatus located opposite
to a sidewall of the container and situated closer to the sidewall
of the container than remaining exterior regions of the
apparatus; and
the insulation layer situated only between the
exterior region of the apparatus and an opposite container wall
region formed by part of the sidewall, located opposite to the
exterior region and sized to only insulate the exterior region of
the apparatus from heat leakage from the opposite container
wall region to the exterior region of the apparatus.

REJECTION
Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nelson (US 3,481,504; iss. Dec. 2, 1969) and Monroe (US 2,916,179; iss.
Dec. 8, 1959).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Nelson discloses an apparatus (inner vessel
24) located within a container 10, bulk insulation 46 filling the container 10,
an insulation layer 20 located within container 10, where an exterior region
of apparatus 24 (i.e., bottom portion 26) is disposed adjacent the insulation
Appeal 2012-008510
Application 11/605,697

3
layer 20 and is situated closer to the sidewall (bottom 12) of the container
(outer vessel 10). Ans. 5. The Examiner also found that Nelson does not
disclose that insulation layer 20 has a thermal conductivity lower than that of
bulk insulation 46, but Monroe teaches this feature. Id. at 6. The Examiner
considered the bottom 26 of inner vessel 24 to be a “wall,” the bottom 12 of
outer vessel 10 to be a “wall,” and the entire inner vessel 24 to be made up
of walls (bottom 26, domed roof 30, and cylindrical sidewall 28). Id. at 8–9.
The Examiner also considered inner vessel bottom 26 and outer vessel flat
bottom 12 to be “sidewalls,” reasoning that a skilled artisan would know that
a bottom of a container can be considered to be a “sidewall” even though
Nelson does not disclose the bottoms to be “sidewalls.” Id. at 9.
Appellants argue that, even if Nelson could be interpreted as proposed
by the Examiner, Nelson would not disclose “bulk insulation filling said
container” because “insulation 20 fully takes up the space between bottom
12 and bottom 26 and there is no bulk insulation within such region.” App.
Br. 11. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with
the scope of claim 1, which claims a container having an apparatus, bulk
insulation, and an insulation layer therein. The limitation “bulk insulation
filling said container” must be read in light of the other features of claim 1
that are located within the container. We interpret this limitation to mean
that bulk insulation fills the portions of the container that are not filled by
the apparatus and the insulation layer. Thus, claim 1 does not require bulk
insulation in a region otherwise occupied by an insulation layer.
Appellants also argue that neither the bottom 26 of inner vessel 24 nor
the bottom 12 of outer vessel 10 is a sidewall; they are bottom sections of
inner vessel 24 and outer vessel 10. App. Br. 10. Appellants further assert
Appeal 2012-008510
Application 11/605,697

4
that Nelson discloses that the outer vessel 10 has a cylindrical sidewall 14, a
roof 16, and a bottom 12, and inner vessel 24 has a substantially cylindrical
sidewall 28, a domed roof 30, and a bottom 26. Id. at 11.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Nelson discloses “an exterior region of the apparatus located opposite to a
sidewall of the container and situated closer to the sidewall of the container
than remaining exterior regions of the apparatus.” Nelson distinguishes the
bottom 12 of outer vessel 10 from the cylindrical sidewall 14 and discloses
that a body of load-bearing insulation 20 rests upon the bottom 12 of outer
vessel 10. Nelson, col. 3, ll. 10–17; Figure. In view of this disclosure, a
skilled artisan would not consider a bottom wall or portion 26 of outer vessel
10 of Nelson to be a sidewall. Nelson’s sole Figure is reproduced below.

The Figure is a vertical section through a storage tank of Nelson.
Appeal 2012-008510
Application 11/605,697

5
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2–5 does not remedy the deficiencies noted above for claim 1. See
Ans. 6–7. As a result, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–5.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1–5.

REVERSED

mls