Ex Parte MaysDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201813733941 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/733,941 01/04/2013 42419 7590 05/31/2018 PAULEY ERICKSON & KOTTIS 2800 WEST HIGGINS ROAD SUITE 365 HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60169 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeffrey A. Mays 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 366696 4340 EXAMINER DOYLE, BRANDI M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1771 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY A. MAYS Appeal2017-008291 Application 13/733,941 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, 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--4, 6, and 22-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a method for purifying water. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of purifying water, the method comprising: (a) heating impure water in a first reboiler to produce clean water and a first concentrated impure water stream, wherein the impure water comprises a product of a hydrocarbon recovery system; Appeal2017-008291 Application 13/733,941 (b) providing the first concentrated impure water stream into a second, different reboiler to produce additional clean water and a second concentrated impure water stream; ( c) providing the second concentrated impure water stream into a gas-fired combustion steam generator to produce a steam stream including particulate matter precipitated from the second concentrated impure water stream; ( d) discharging the steam stream including particulate matter precipitated from the second concentrated impure water stream from the gas-fired combustion stream [ sic, steam] generator; ( e) introducing the discharged steam stream including particulate matter precipitated from the second concentrated impure water stream into a particulate separator to separate the particulate matter from the steam stream to produce a clean steam stream; and (f) providing the clean steam stream sequentially to the second reboiler and the first reboiler to, respectively, transfer heat to the first concentrated impure water stream and the impure water, said steps (a)-(f) producing about 3 parts by weight of the clean water and about 1 part by weight of the clean steam for every 4 parts by weight of the impure water. Spears Latimer Betzer Tsilevich Dighe The References us 4,078,976 US 2011/0259586 Al US 2012/0000642 Al US 2013/0062188 Al The Rejections Mar. 14, 1978 Oct. 27, 2011 Jan. 5,2012 Mar. 14, 2013 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 22-26 over Latimer in view of Dighe and Betzer Tsilevich, and claim 2 over Latimer in view of Dighe, Betzer Tsilevich and Spears. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent 2 Appeal2017-008291 Application 13/733,941 claims (1 and 26). Those claims require "providing the clean steam stream sequentially to the second reboiler and the first reboiler to, respectively, transfer heat to the first concentrated impure water stream and the impure water." To meet that claim requirement the Examiner relies upon the combined disclosures of Latimer and Dighe (Ans. 2--4). Latimer shows in Figure 1 a method for enhancing recovery of heavy oil from a subsurface formation by injecting steam (14) into an injection well (16) to lower the heavy oil's viscosity, and collecting recovered heavy oil and condensed steam via an oil/water gathering well (30) into an oil/water separator (32) from which oil product (34) is removed and water ( condensed steam) (35) is de-oiled ( 40) and sent to a steam generator ( 48) wherein combustible impurities in the water are combusted, solid particles (58) are removed, and steam (14) is generated for injection into the injection well (16) (i1i1 5, 14, 22-25). AG.1 3 Appeal2017-008291 Application 13/733,941 Dighe shows in Figure 2 the first of three similar stages of a system for removing dissolved solids from water which has been used as gas well-drilling fracking fluid (i1i12, 31 ). Dighe uses a pump ( 42) to pressurize dissolved solids-containing inlet waste water ( 40), passes the pressurized water through a condenser ( 44) and a pre heater ( 46) into a flash evaporator (50) wherein steam (52) is separated from brine water (54), combines the steam (52) with steam (81) from a dissolved-solids crystallizer (80; Fig. 5), and passes the steam (52, 81) through the preheater (46) and to the condenser (44) wherein the steam (52, 81) is condensed to distilled water (i1i141--43). "The level of pressurization of waste water in all Stages is such that there is no boiling of the waste water inside and across the heat exchanger surfaces of both the condenser 44 and preheater 46" (i1 42). \ STml rno~l Q<1'S:ALl.lZi:R ff'I& 5: i >i11lt$~f g\_./1 ··::' I~WEAA~JR~ tie[J ~~ ~~J ~:: o~T:i,tfY or \\l~rs ~\fITJj .. ~:t;:b 1}1_5::.: ( -J, H~~.T OP \~~PGR:I>\:1f:N-.. t.;~(!b %? f,J Lt. :'R~C1!l1! fii'W,\S:E W~]:ll fLAS•ffi ~ff~ Ml: i 6Fi~E WA!!R i' ~)r FIG 2 msm, The Examiner finds that Dighe' s "series of exchangers with subsequent separator is equivalent to one reboiler. Thus, Dighe teaches using multiple reboilers in series. When two stages are used, two clean 4 2~Ii Appeal2017-008291 Application 13/733,941 water streams will be produced" (Ans. 8), and "[t]he second concentrated impure water, or final concentrated stream if more than two stages are used, would then be processed in the combustion steam generator of Latimer to produce additional steam" (Ans. 9). The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the serial reboiling steps of Dighe with the process of Latimer upstream of the steam generator ( 1) because such combination of elements does not [ sic, no] more than achieve their respective functions in a predictable way by producing a clean steam and concentrated impure water stream in each of the series of stages; and (2) the combination of simple reboilers for removing clean water and concentrating the impure water upstream of the steam generator would provide the benefit of decreasing the size of the stream to the steam generator, thus decreasing the size and cost of the steam generator" (Ans. 4). The Examiner does not establish that Latimer' s total system cost would be reduced by adding two of Dighe's pump/condenser/preheater/flash evaporator stages upstream of Latimer' s steam generator ( 48). Nor does the Examiner establish that modifying Latimer' s system in that manner would provide a clean steam stream from Latimer' s steam generator ( 48) via a particulate separator to re boilers corresponding to the Appellant's second and first reboilers which transfer heat, respectively, to a stream corresponding to the Appellant's first concentrated impure water stream and to water corresponding to the Appellant's impure water. Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis that is sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of the Appellant's claimed method. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on 5 Appeal2017-008291 Application 13/733,941 section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art"). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. DECISION The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 22-26 over Latimer in view of Dighe and Betzer Tsilevich, and claim 2 over Latimer in view of Dighe, Betzer Tsilevich and Spears are reversed. The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation