Ex Parte Kastingschafer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 9, 2013

11574834 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GERHARD KASTINGSCHAFER
and FRANK RUOSS
____________________

Appeal 2011-009811
Application 11/574,834
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD,
and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009811
Application 11/574,834

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
7, 9, 10, and 12-15. Claim 8 has been canceled.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to methods and devices for incinerating
combustion material during cement production. Claims 1 and 12 are the
independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for incinerating combustion
material in the form of combustible waste during
cement production, the method comprising:
introducing the combustion material in the
form of combustible waste into a combustion
chamber;
burning the combustion material with the
addition of at least a first air flow;
supplying at least a second air flow in a
region of a floor of the combustion chamber in
such a manner that the residues or remaining
combustion materials which are located on the
floor are moved by the second air flow; and
feeding cement raw meal into the
combustion chamber;
wherein the combustion material which is
located on the floor is lifted by selective activation
of the second air flow and is blown into or through
the first air flow and thereby comes into
operational contact with the first air flow for the
purposes of combustion.

1 Claim 11 has been objected to as depending from a rejected base claim but
deemed allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Rej. 7.
Appeal 2011-009811
Application 11/574,834

3

REFERENCES
Bauer
Jamison
US 5,098,285
US 5,865,130
Mar. 24, 1992
Feb. 2, 1999

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jamison and Bauer. Ans. 3-4.
Claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jamison and Bauer. Ans. 6.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 – Obviousness – Jamison and Bauer
The Examiner found that Jamison discloses a method for incinerating
combustible waste material including the steps of introducing the
combustion material (e.g., waste oil) into a combustion chamber; burning the
material with the addition of at least a first air flow, and supplying a second
air flow in a region of the combustion chamber floor to lift combustion
material near the flow up into the first air flow. Ans. 3-4 (citing Jamison,
col. 6, ll. 27-34, 52-62). Noting that Jamison fails to disclose the
combustion of waste material during cement production or feeding cement
raw meal into the combustion chamber, the Examiner found that Bauer
teaches these limitations. Id. at 4 (citing Bauer, abstract; col. 3, ll. 29-32);
see Bauer fig. 1. The Examiner then determined that
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time
of invention to combine the combustion method of [Jamison]
with the cement production steps of [Bauer] because such a
combination would have produced the added benefit of a
method for producing cement using waste materials with means
Appeal 2011-009811
Application 11/574,834

4
to prevent buildup of the waste material on the floor/grate of the
combustion chamber.
Ans. 4. The Examiner subsequently clarified that the proposed combination
involves the modification of Jamison’s thermal oxidizer by adding raw
cement meal as taught by Bauer, and allowing the resulting cement product
to be removed from the thermal oxidizer in the same way the dust is
disclosed as being removed, for the purpose of additionally producing
cement instead of just thermal energy. See Ans. 7-8. Appellants argue, inter
alia, that “one skilled in the art would appreciate that [Jamison] and Bauer
are related to two very different fields of art,” and that the proposed
combination “simply would not work.” Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants. Jamison’s disclosure relates to a thermal
oxidizer used to decontaminate exhaust and waste gases, and discloses a
means of removing accumulated particulate matter from the oxidizer that, if
allowed to remain, would reduce its efficiency. Jamison, col. 1, ll. 13-15;
col. 3, ll. 55-60; col. 6, ll. 21-62. It seems doubtful that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would nonetheless have added particulate matter in the form
of raw cement meal to Jamison’s device knowing that it would reduce the
device’s efficiency. The Examiner’s reason for obviousness therefore lacks
a rational underpinning, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and
10 as obvious over Jamison and Bauer is not sustained.
Claims 12-15 – Obviousness – Jamison and Bauer
The Examiner sets forth essentially the same findings and reason for
obviousness (Ans. 6-7) as discussed supra with respect to claims 1-7, 9, and
10. Because, for the reasons discussed supra, we determine that the
Examiner’s reason for obviousness lacks a rational underpinning, the
Appeal 2011-009811
Application 11/574,834

5
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-15 as obvious over Jamison and Bauer is
not sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 10,
and 12-15 as obvious over Jamison and Bauer are reversed.
REVERSED

msc