Ex Parte Konijn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 17, 2009

10779988 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte GERRIT KONIJN
________________

Appeal 2009-003358
Application 10/779,988
Technology Center 1700
________________

Decided: September 17, 2009
________________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3-14, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2009-003358
Application 10/779,988

2
The Invention
The Appellant claims a separation tray, and states that it is useful in a
column for separating liquid/gas mixtures (Spec. 1:1-5). Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A separation tray suitable for being horizontally mounted
in a normally vertical column, which separation tray comprises
a normally horizontal upper wall and a normally horizontal
lower wall defining an inner space between them; a means for
admitting fluid to the inner space; a means for removing liquid
from the inner space; a means for removing gas from the inner
space; a plurality of primary separation devices within the inner
space, for separating fluid into primary gas and liquid-enriched
fluid, which primary separation devices comprise:
a normally vertical tubular conduit having at its lower
end an inlet for fluid, which inlet is in fluid communication
with the means for admitting fluid, and having at its upper end
an outlet for primary gas, from which outlet an outlet conduit
extends to a primary gas outlet opening in the upper wall,
which primary gas outlet opening forms part of the means for
removing gas;
a swirl-imparting means arranged in the conduit between
the inlet for fluid and the outlet for primary gas, so as to cause,
during normal operation, the formation of a layer of liquid-
enriched fluid in an annular region adjacent the inner surface of
the conduit downstream of the swirl-imparting means, which
liquid-enriched fluid comprises secondary gas;
and which separation tray further comprises a means for
removing and guiding liquid-enriched fluid from each of the
primary separation devices to a secondary separation means for
removing entrained liquid from secondary gas;
wherein the secondary separation means for removing
entrained liquid from secondary gas is formed by the free inner
space between the upper and lower walls, which free inner
Appeal 2009-003358
Application 10/779,988

3
space has in its lower part an outlet for liquid in fluid
communication with the means for removing liquid and in its
upper part an outlet for secondary gas, which extends to a
secondary gas outlet opening in the upper wall, which
secondary gas outlet opening is separate from the primary gas
outlet opening and forms part of the means for removing gas,
and wherein the means for removing and guiding liquid-
enriched fluid surrounds each primary separation device and is
arranged to admit all liquid-enriched fluid downwardly into the
free inner space;
wherein the means for removing and guiding liquid-
enriched fluid is arranged to admit all of the liquid-enriched
fluid to the free inner space at a position within 30% of the
spacing between upper and lower walls, counted from the lower
wall.
The References
Sheinman 5,626,799 May 6, 1997
Schuurmans (EP ‘508) EP 0 048 508 A2 Mar. 31, 1982
Artemov (DE ‘420) DE 38 32 420 A1 Apr. 5, 1990
(as translated)
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1
and 5 over DE ‘420; claims 3, 4 and 6-8 over DE ‘420 in view of EP ‘508;
and claims 9-14 over DE ‘420 in view of EP ‘508 and Sheinman.
OPINION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
The Appellant states that the rejections of claims 1 and 3-14 are
appealed (Notice of Appeal filed June 4, 2007). The Appellant, however,
argues only the rejection of claim 1 (Br. 4-5). Because the rejections of
claims 3-14 are not argued, those claims stand or fall with claim 1, which is
the sole independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Appeal 2009-003358
Application 10/779,988

4
Issue
Has the Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that DE ‘420 would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, a device for removing and guiding
liquid-enriched fluid, arranged to admit all of the liquid-enriched fluid to a
free inner space at a position within 30% of the spacing between upper and
lower walls, counted from the lower wall?
Findings of Fact
DE ‘420 discloses a device which uses centrifugal force provided by
blades 11 in separating pipe 8 and blades 12 in separating pipe 9 to separate
two-component mixtures such as wet steam (pp. 2, 3, 5 and 7; Fig. 1). Dry
steam flows out of the top of separating pipe 9, and a steam/water mixture
passes from separating pipe 8 through gap 10 between separating pipes 8
and 9 and then through downwardly-opening cap 14 into separation
chamber 3, from which dry steam exits through opening 13 and water exits
through side port 5 (pp. 5-7; Fig. 1). Separation chamber 3 is between
lower (6) and upper (7) plates (p. 5; Fig. 1).
It is undisputed that the bottom of cap 14 in Figure 1 is located at
about 3/8 (37.5%) of the distance from lower plate 6 to upper plate 7
(Ans. 3-4; Br. 5).1 Regarding the position of the bottom of the Appellant’s
return skirt (45a, 45b, 45c; Spec. 11:11-15; Fig. 1), to which DE ‘420’s
cap 14 corresponds, the Appellant states (Spec. 7:1-11):
Suitably, the means for removing and guiding the
liquid-enriched fluid to the free inner space has its outlet at a position
within 50%, more preferably within 30% of the spacing between
upper and lower walls, counted from the lower wall. In this way a

1 There is no dispute as to whether DE ‘420’s Figure 1 is drawn to scale.
Appeal 2009-003358
Application 10/779,988

5
sufficiently long travel distance for all of the secondary gas to outlets
in the upper region of the free inner space is arranged, so that the
residence time of the gas in the free inner space is above a certain
minimum to allow settling out of the entrained liquid.

Analysis
The Appellant argues “that the advantage of the invention of Claim 1
over Artemov [DE ‘420] may include one or more of the following: liquid
can not reach the secondary gas outlets on a direct trajectory, maximized use
of free inner space, increased time available for separation of entrained
liquid, and/or longer travel distance for secondary gas” (Br. 5).
As indicated by the Appellant’s Specification, those benefits are
obtained when the bottom of the return skirt is within 50% of the distance
from the lower to the upper wall (Spec. 7:1-11). Because the bottom of
DE ‘420’s cap 14 is within that range, i.e., 37.5% of the distance from the
lower to the upper plate, the Appellant’s disclosure indicates that DE ‘420’s
device also provides those benefits. The Appellant does not allege that a
30% distance provides a benefit that is not provided by a 50% distance or
any distance therebetween such as that of DE ‘420.
The Appellant argues that “Artemov does not teach or suggest any
return skirt length, nor a range which could be modified by one of skill in
the art” (Br. 5).
The Examiner finds that “the deeper the extension of the cap (14)
toward the lower wall (6) of the separation tray, the greater the degree of
separation, but also the higher the pressure drop across the tray” (Ans. 6),
and that “[o]ne having ordinary skill in the pertinent art will thus determine
the appropriate amount of cap extension based upon desired level of
Appeal 2009-003358
Application 10/779,988

6
separation and an acceptable pressure drop, which determines the amount of
energy input required to operate the column” Id.
Because the Examiner’s finding is reasonable and has not been
challenged by the Appellant, we accept it as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326
F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the
Appellant’s argument that DE ‘420 would not have suggested a return skirt
length range to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”).
Conclusion of Law
The Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that DE ‘420 would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, a device for removing and guiding
liquid-enriched fluid, arranged to admit all of the liquid-enriched fluid to a
free inner space at a position within 30% of the spacing between upper and
lower walls, counted from the lower wall.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 and 5 over DE ‘420,
claims 3, 4 and 6-8 over DE ‘420 in view of EP ‘508, and claims 9-14 over
DE ‘420 in view of EP ‘508 and Sheinman are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-003358
Application 10/779,988

7

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

kmm

SHELL OIL COMPANY
P.O. BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463