Ex Parte Landis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13180224 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

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.
13/180,224 07/11/2011 Charles R. Landis 086108-0480 2038
99633 7590 02/23/2017
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
GRABER, KARA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mweipdocket @ mwe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES R. LANDIS, RYAN P. COLLINS,
EDWARD A. ANDERSON, ROGER H. WOODS,
DOUGLAS G. PULLMAN, and DAVID M. DONALD
Appeal 2016-002304
Application 13/180,224
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS,
and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’
final decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Pullman 496 (US 2005/0205496 Al, published Sept. 22,
Appeal 2016-002304
Application 13/180,224
2005); and claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pullman 496. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The sole independent claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
providing a returned fluid comprising:
a fluid; and
a solid contaminant;
introducing the returned fluid into a solid-liquid sorter
thereby separating the returned fluid into an overflow and
underflow;
flocculating the underflow in a flocculating chamber
thereby forming a flocculated fluid, the flocculation chamber
comprising: a flocculation trough having at least one baffle and
an injection port for introducing a flocculant; and
dewatering the flocculated fluid using a dewatering rack.
Appellants only present arguments directed to independent claim 1
(App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2, 3). Accordingly, all of the claims stand or fall
together.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability.
However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that the claimed subject matter of representative claim 1
is anticipated within the meaning of § 102 in view of the applied prior art of
Pullman 496. Accordingly, we will sustain all of the Examiner’s rejections
for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, including the
Examiner’s Response to Argument section, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
2
Appeal 2016-002304
Application 13/180,224
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
The only limitation in dispute is whether Pullman’s unnumbered
element in flocculant mixing trough 56 encompasses “a baffle” as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 7, 8; Ans. 6, 7). Pullman 496 refers to a mixing apparatus
of the type shown in Pullman 355. There is no dispute that Pullman 355
shows a similar element 21 to the unnumbered element in Pullman 496
labeled a baffle by the Examiner (e.g., Ans. 6) and describes its element 21
as a hopper shut off valve (id. at 7; see also Reply Br. 2, 3).
The Examiner explains that a baffle is something that balks, checks,
or deflects, as evidenced by Dictionary.com (Ans. 5). Appellants do not
specifically dispute this definition, but rather conclude that “there is clearly
no indication of a baffle in Pullman” (App. Br. 8) and “relabeling” the
reference element “cannot be used to teach” the claimed element (Reply Br.
3). This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As pointed out by
the Examiner, Appellants’ Specification contains no limiting or special
definition of “baffle.” Appellants do not provide any persuasive reasoning
or evidence that such a valve as depicted in Pullman 456 as evidenced in
Pullman 355 would not have balked, checked, or deflected the flow.
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
position (Ans. generally). Notably, Appellants have not directed our
3
Appeal 2016-002304
Application 13/180,224
attention to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that
the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable, nor to any portion of the
Specification that limits the definition of “baffle” to exclude the type of
baffle/valve found in Pullman as pointed out by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, as well
as the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4 and 6 which is not
separately argued.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
4