Ex Parte Kato et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 24, 2009

10289429 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HISAKATSU KATO, MASASHI WADA, NAOYUKI EGUCHI,
and HIROFUMI SASAKI
____________

Appeal 2009-008499
Application 10/289,489
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: November 24, 2009
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-008499
Application 10/289,429

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of pending claims 12-14 and 16.1 (App. Br. 2). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2
We REVERSE.
Claim 12, the only independent claim on appeal, recites:
12. A vessel for bringing a slurry composed of an aqueous
solution and aggregated particles to a substantially complete
mixing state, having a hollow space defined by a surrounding
wall and a bottom part, wherein the vessel has:

a supply port at a lower portion of the wall,

two or more baffle plates mounted on an inner surface of
the wall so that the baffle plates protrude toward the hollow
space and extend in vertical direction along the inner surface of
the wall from immediately above the bottom part to a
prescribed height from the bottom part, and

a stirring blade located within the hollow space and
within a space below the prescribed height of the baffle plates;
and
straightening vanes;

wherein the baffle plates improve stirring efficiency,
such that at the time of stirring, an ascending current is formed
along the inner surface of the wall of vessel, whereby a slurry in
a concentrating region specified by the height of baffle plates
can be brought to a substantially complete mixing state, and

1 Claim 15 has been canceled and claims 1-11 have been withdrawn from
consideration. (Appeal Brief filed July 10, 2008, hereinafter “App. Br.,” 2)
2 Oral arguments were heard in this appeal on November 17, 2009.
Appeal 2009-008499
Application 10/289,429

3
wherein the straightening vanes are provided on the inner
surface of the wall, so that the straightening vanes protrude toward
the hollow space and are located on the wall above the baffle
plates, and the straightening vanes promote separation of an
aqueous solution and aggregated particles, from each other in the
concentrating region and improve the clarity of the aqueous
solution.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mejdell US 4,049,773 Sep. 20, 1977

The Examiner rejected claims 12-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mejdell.
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner found that Mejdell’s
baffles 4 are equivalent to Appellants’ straightening vanes and Mejdell’s
concentric tube 3 is equivalent to Appellants’ baffles. (Examiner’s Answer
entered September 25, 2008, hereinafter “Ans.,” 4-6).
Appellants contend that the recited baffles do not read on Mejdell’s
concentric tube 3 because: (1) concentric tube 3 is single tube, where the
claims require two or more baffle plates; (2) concentric tube 3 is not
mounted on the inner surface of the wall 4, and (3) concentric tube 3 does
not protrude toward hollow space 4 as required by the claims. (Reply Brief
filed November 24, 2008, hereinafter “Rep. Br.,” 3-4). Appellants also
contend that Mejdell’s baffles 4 are not attached to the inner surface of the
wall as required for the recited straightening vanes and that Mejdell’s baffles
4 are not located above the concentric tube 3 as required for the
straightening vanes and baffle plates recited in the claims. (Rep. Br. 4-5).

Appeal 2009-008499
Application 10/289,429

4
ISSUE
Have Appellants shown error in the Examiner’s determination that the
recited structure of the straightening vanes and baffle plates would have
been obvious over Mejdell?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Mejdell’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Figure 1 depicts a precipitator 1 including a propeller 2, a concentric tube
3, baffles 4, concentric tube 5, lower funnel shaped end 6, vertical baffles
7, feed line 8, overflow tube 9, and lines 10 and 11. (Col. 3, ll. 8-40).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In
Appeal 2009-008499
Application 10/289,429

5
order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must
show that each limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior
art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary
skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, that Mejdell, as
interpreted by the Examiner, would not have rendered the vessel recited in
the claims obvious. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that the “two or
more baffle plates” recited in the claims do not read on Mejdell’s concentric
tube 3. Concentric tube 3 is one tube and does not protrude toward the
hollow space as recited in the claims. (See FF 1). In addition, Mejdell
discloses that baffles 4 are located in concentric tube 3, and not on the inner
surface of the wall as recited in the claims. (See FF 1). Moreover, because
baffles 4 are located in concentric tube 3, baffles 4 may not be “located on
the wall above the baffle plates” as recited in the claims. The Examiner
failed to provide sufficient reasoning to make up for the structural
deficiencies in Mejdell. Accordingly, Appellants have demonstrated
reversible error on the part of the Examiner.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the recited structure of the straightening vanes and baffle
plates would have been obvious over Mejdell.

Appeal 2009-008499
Application 10/289,429

6
ORDER
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12-14 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

kmm

BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
P.O. BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747