Ex Parte Krodel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2005

09725428 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte GUNTER KRODEL, LUTZ FABIAN and VOLKMAR HOPFE
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-0715
Application No. 09/725,428
______________
HEARD: MAY 18, 2005
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal which involves claims 1-13.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for
purifying process waste gases comprising measuring with a first
detector the type and amount of selected harmful substances in
the waste gas before the waste gases enter the waste gas
purification system to generate first measuring signals,
determining with a second detector the type and amount of
selected harmful substances leaving the waste gas purification
system to generate second measuring signals, and directly using
the first and second measuring signals for adjusting the
Appeal No. 2005-0715
Application No. 09/725,428
2
operating parameters of the waste gas purification system.
Further details of this appealed subject matter are set forth in
representative independent claim 1 which reads as follows:
1. A method for purifying process waste gases
containing selected harmful substances comprising:
introducing the process waste gases with
combustible gas and oxygen into a waste gas purification
system having a combustion chamber, an exit, and operating
parameters, including amount of combustible gas and amount
of oxygen;
post-treating reaction products leaving the
combustion chamber in a sorbtion chamber with an associated
washing agent circuit containing washing agent having a
selectable pH;
measuring with a first detector the type and
amount of selected harmful substances in the process waste
gas before said waste gases enter the waste gas purification
system to generate first measuring signals;
determining with a second detector the type and
amount of selected harmful substances of the reaction
products leaving the waste gas purification system at the
exit of the purification system to generate second measuring
signals; and
directly using the first and second measuring
signals for adjusting the operating parameters of the waste
gas purification system, including amount of combustible
gas, amount of oxygen, amount of washing agent in the
washing agent circuit, and pH of the washing agent.
Appeal No. 2005-0715
Application No. 09/725,428
3
The references set forth below are relied upon as evidence
of obviousness:
Kisters et al. (Kisters) 4,229,411 Oct. 21, 1980
Tom 6,030,591 Feb. 20, 2000
Rossin et al. (Rossin) 6,069,291 May 30, 2000
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rossin in view of Kisters and
Tom.
We refer to the brief and reply brief as well as to the
answer for a complete exposition of the opposing view points
expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, this rejection cannot be
sustained.
With respect to the appealed independent claim
1 distinctions over the primary reference to Rossin, the examiner
states that:
Rossin . . . does not disclose (1) the step of controlling
the scrubbing condition by monitoring the amount of harmful
substances in the effluent gas before and after the
scrubbing step and (2) the decomposing step is carried
in a combustion chamber having a combustible gas.
[Answer, page 5.]
Concerning claim distinction (1), the examiner concludes
Appeal No. 2005-0715
Application No. 09/725,428
4
that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention was made [sic] to use the
control method as suggested by Kisters . . . for the scrubbing
step of Rossin . . . because such control method would
automatically control the amount of neutralizing agent (e.g.,
caustic solution) for the scrubbing step” (answer, page 6). As
for claim distinction (2), the examiner concludes that “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention was made [sic] to incineration method
to carried [sic] out the process of Rossin . . . to raise the
process temperature by direct heating because such process is
known and conventional in the art as shown by Tom” (answer, page
7).
The deficiency of the examiner’s rejection arises from the
fact that claim distinction (1) is inaccurate. While it is true
that the method of Rossin does not include use of first and
second detectors as required by appealed claim 1, the examiner
erroneously believes that the first and second detector measuring
steps of this claim occur “before and after the scrubbing step”
(answer, page 5). Instead, the independent claim under review
requires “measuring with a first detector . . . before said waste
gases enter the waste gas purification system . . . ” and
Appeal No. 2005-0715
Application No. 09/725,428
5
“determining with a second detector . . . at the exit of the
purification system . . . . ” Significantly, the waste gas
purification system of claim 1 comprises a combustion chamber
followed by a sorbtion chamber.
Thus, in order to comply with the first and second detector
steps recited in the appealed independent claim, the method of
Rossin would have to be modified to include use of a first
detector for measuring the type and amount of selected harmful
substances in the process waste gas before the waste gas enters
patentee’s catalytic oxidation chamber (which the examiner
analogizes to the here claimed combustion chamber). However, the
Kisters reference contains no teaching or suggestion of using a
detector for measuring substances in process waste gas before the
waste gas enters a waste gas purification system which comprises
a combustion chamber followed by a sorbtion chamber as required
by the claim before us. Rather, consistent with the examiner’s
discussion of this reference and the obviousness conclusion based
thereon, Kisters’ most upstream use of a detector occurs before
the waste gas enters his absorber (e.g., see figure 1 and the
specification disclosure relating thereto). Therefore, even if
the teachings of Rossin and Kisters were combined, the result
would be a method in which first detector measuring would occur
Appeal No. 2005-0715
Application No. 09/725,428
6
between Rossin’s catalytic oxidizing step and his caustic
scrubbing step.
Because such a first detector measuring location does not
satisfy the corresponding first detector measuring requirement of
appealed claim 1, the examiner’s rejection is improper for this
reason alone. It follows that we cannot sustain the Section 103
rejection of all appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Rossin in view of Kisters and Tom.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:hh
Appeal No. 2005-0715
Application No. 09/725,428
7
BAKER & BOTTS
30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA
NEW YORK, NY 10112