Ex Parte Morandi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2013

11570419 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ENZO MORANDI
____________________

Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge
BEVERLY M. BUNTING.

Opinion dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge JOHN C. KERINS.

BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for high
temperature heat treatment of combustible waste material. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A method for high temperature heat treatment of combustible
material, comprising:
a) heating the combustible material in a reducing
environment in a pyrolysis chamber, wherein gas and vapor are
introduced at high temperature into the pyrolysis chamber to
contact the combustible material and produce semiwater gas,
the vapor being provided by a source outside of the pyrolysis
chamber; and
b) completely burning the combustible material in a
combustion chamber;
wherein the gas at high temperature is burnt gas drawn
downstream from the combustion chamber without intervening
thermal treatments and added to at least some of the vapor
before entering the pyrolysis chamber, and wherein the
semiwater gas formed in the pyrolysis chamber is burnt once
the gas reaches the combustion chamber, which substantially
increases combustion temperature.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dauvergne
Caffyn
Fujimura
US 4,167,909
US 4,395,958
US 5,922,090
Sep. 18, 1979
Aug. 2, 1983
Jul. 13, 1999
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
3
Abdelmalek US 5,937,652 Aug. 17, 1999

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Abdelmalek and Dauvergne.1 Ans. 4.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Abdelmalek, Dauvergne, and Caffyn. Ans. 9.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Abdelmalek, Dauvergne, and Fujimura. Ans. 10.
Claims 10-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Abdelmalek and Dauvergne. Ans. 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Abdelmalek, Dauvergne, and Caffyn. Ans. 12.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abdelmalek and Dauvergne. Ans. 13.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Abdelmalek, Dauvergne, and Fujimura. Ans. 14.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 16, and 18: Abdelmalek and Dauvergne
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, and 6-8 as a group. App. Br. 11-23. We
select claim 1 as representative, treating claims 3, and 6-8 as standing or

1 Although claim 9 was inadvertently excluded in the listing of rejected
claims, the Examiner did separately provide findings regarding the proposed
rejection of claim 9 in the Final Office Action of July 2, 2010 and Answer of
February 8, 2011. See Fin. Off. Act. 7; Ans. 8. Appellant also appears to
recognize claim 9 is rejected. See App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 9.
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
4
falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellant provides separate arguments for claims 2, 5, 9, 16, and 18, which
will be addressed separately.
The Examiner finds that Abdelmalek teaches a method for high
temperature heat treatment of combustible material by a) heating the
combustible material in a pyrolysis chamber (120) and introducing gas and
vapor from an outside source (195, 150) at high temperature to contact the
combustible material and produce semiwater gas; b) completely burning the
combustible material in a combustion chamber (140), and the gas at high
temperature is burnt gas drawn downstream from the combustion chamber
and vapor entering the pyrolysis chamber such that the semiwater gas
formed in the pyrolysis chamber is burnt once the gas reaches the
combustion chamber to increase combustion temperature. Ans. 4-5, citing
Abdelmalek, col. 2, ll. 24-27; col. 5, ll. 18-21, 45-52, 61-63; col. 3, ll. 21-23;
col. 5, l. 64 - col. 6, l. 4; col. 6, ll. 59-63; col. 7, ll. 27-31; figs. 1, 2, 3b.
Although Abdelmalek does not explicitly disclose the burnt gas and water
vapor are combined before entering the pyrolysis chamber, the Examiner
relies on knowledge regarding fluidized bed gasifiers which “utilize a single
high pressure duct with the fluidizing gases to a perforated plate, which
inherently requires the vapor and carbon dioxide gases to be mixed prior to
entering the pyrolysis chamber” to teach combining the burnt gas and water
vapor before entering the pyrolysis chamber. Ans. 5, citing Abdelmalek,
col. 3, ll. 21-23; col. 6, ll. 22-26. In addition, the Examiner relies on
Dauvergne to teach combining two streams of gas (30, 50) before entering a
pyrolysis chamber (14) (Fig. 1). Based on these teachings, the Examiner
reasons it would have been obvious to combine the gasifier of Abdelmalek
with the combined recirculation duct of Dauvergne “because such a
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
5
combination would have produced the added benefit of allowing the gases to
be thoroughly mixed prior to being injected into the pyrolysis chamber
which prevents a more thorough and complete pyrolysis reaction.” Ans. 5.
While admitting that Abdelmalek fails to disclose returning the flue gas from
the combustion chamber to the pyrolysis chamber without intervening
thermal treatments, the Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to
“eliminate[] the flue gas cleaning system and return the flue gas from the
combustion chamber to the pyrolysis chamber without intervening thermal
treatments, since it has been held that the omission of an element and its
function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same
functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.” Ans. 5, citing In
re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975).
Appellant essentially argues that Abdelmalek does not teach the
production of semiwater gas, and instead discloses that the gasifier 120
produces synthesis gas and char, and that the synthesis gas is a water gas.
App. Br. 13-14, citing Abdelmalek, col. 2, ll. 15-19; col. 3, ll. 43-48; col. 5,
ll. 55-58; Reply Br. 4-6.2 According to Appellant, the “difference between
‘synthesis gas’ (or ‘water gas’), and ‘semiwater gas’ is well known to a
person skilled in the art” and semiwater gas is defined in Appellant’s
Specification. App. Br. 13, citing Spec., paras. [0014], [0045].
In response, the Examiner points out that Appellant’s Specification
lacks any specific definition of the term "semiwater gas" and generally

2 We do not address whether the Examiner raised a new ground of rejection
in the Final Office action as Appellant asserts (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4)
because whether an Examiner’s rejection would or would not properly be
regarded as a new ground of rejection is a petitionable matter, not an
appealable matter, and Appellant had the opportunity to raise this issue in a
timely Petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 but have not done so.

Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
6
indicates that semiwater gas is comprised of a “water gas and air gas” and
that the synthesis gas (water gas) and air gas (carbon dioxide) of
Abdelmalek meets this limitation. Ans. 15, citing Abdelmalek, col. 3, ll. 21-
23, 45-48. Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not shown that
semiwater gas and water gas are identical gases, and Appellant was never
afforded the opportunity to respond to such allegation, is not persuasive to
apprise us how semiwater gas and water gas are different. Reply Br. 4-5.3
Appellant’s argument that the synthesis gas produced in the gasifier of
Abdelmalek is not a semiwater gas since it is a mixture of carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon products and does not contain nitrogen, is
likewise not persuasive. Reply Br. 7. The Examiner reasons that the
synthesis gas of Abdelmalek is a semiwater gas since Abdelmalek discloses
“burning the gases from the gasifier with oxygen, the resulting gases
containing nitrogen oxides”, and since “oxygen and not air is used as the
oxidant, the only source for the nitrogen that results in nitrous oxides must
be the gas produced by the gasifier.” Ans. 16, citing Abdelmalek, col. 5, l.
64 – col. 6, l. 11. Appellant’s argument that Abdelmalek discloses that
nitrous oxide is a by-product of boiler 140 and that nitrogen oxide is
removed before the combustion gas is treated and recycled to gasifier 120 is
not persuasive. Reply Br. 8, citing Abdelmalek, col. 6, ll. 4-16).
Next, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred since the synthesis gas
producing process using carbon dioxide and steam taught by Abdelmalek is
not the same as the semiwater production process of Appellant, whereby gas
(i.e., burnt gas drawn downstream from the combustion chamber without

3 Appellant refers to various documents that purport to show the difference
between semiwater gas and water gas; however, these documents were not
submitted as evidence in the Evidence Appendix of the Appeal Brief. App.
Br. 13, 36; Reply Br. 5.
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
7
intervening thermal treatments) is mixed with vapor. App. Br. 13-15.
According to the Examiner, the limitation of claim 1 is met by Abdelmalek
since “carbon dioxide is a type of gas and steam is a type of vapor.” Ans.
16. Appellant maintains the burnt gas of claim 1 “is more than carbon
dioxide,” and is not the same as the pure form of carbon dioxide (i.e., with
nitrogen oxides removed in a separation plant) taught by Abdelmalek. App.
Br. 15; Reply Br. 6-7, citing Abdelmalek, col. 6, ll. 5-11; figs. 1 and 2.
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 which
does not define the specific components of the gas or burnt gas, and thus
Appellant does not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1.4
With respect to Dauvergne, Appellant argues that Dauvergne does not
teach the production of semiwater gas, nor that two streams of gas are
combined before entering a pyrolysis chamber, because the mixed gases are
injected into a second chamber 38, which is not a pyrolysis chamber. App.
Br. 14-16. In reply, the Examiner points out that Abdelmalek inherently
discloses a pre-mixing step, and fluidized bed gasifiers, as known in the art,
“utilize a single high pressure duct with the fluidizing gases to a perforated
plate, which inherently requires the vapor and carbon dioxide gases to be
mixed prior to entering the pyrolysis chamber.” Ans. 17, citing Abdelmalek,
col. 3, ll. 21-23; col. 6, ll. 22-26. According to the Examiner, Dauvergne
was cited as an alternative to teach a pre-mixing step, “which would produce
the added benefit of a gas that is more thoroughly mixed, which allows
greater efficiency and overall gasification of the fuel.” Ans. 17. The
Examiner further notes that pre-mixing is the use of a known technique to

4 See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
8
improve a similar method in a same way, and “[a]s an additional benefit, the
pre-mixing step would reduce the cost and complexity of the gasifier
because only one return duct would be necessary instead of two because the
gases would be mixed.” Ans. 18. Appellant’s argument that Dauvergne
does not teach the production of semiwater gas is not persuasive, since the
Examiner relied on Dauvergne to disclose the limitation of combining two
streams of gas before entering a pyrolysis chamber. Further, Appellant’s
argument that the second chamber is not a pyrolysis chamber does not
persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Abdelmalek
and Dauvergne disclose a premixing step that includes combining two
streams of gas (30, 50) before entering a pyrolysis chamber.
Further, Appellant contends that Abdelmalek and Dauvergne do not
disclose the limitation of "burnt gas drawn downstream from the combustion
chamber without intervening thermal treatments" as recited in claim 1.
According to Appellant, the burnt gas of Abdelmalek is subject to post
processing heat treatment and the removal of nitrogen, and the burnt gas of
Dauvergne received intervening thermal treatments by crossing the colder
material on conveyer 18 and mixing the colder gas from conduit 30. App.
Br. 14-16. Appellant submits that the Examiner erred in summarily
dismissing the presence of intervening thermal treatments in both
Abdelmalek and Dauvergne as “unwanted or unnecessary” citing In re
Kuhle, since the Examiner did not show that the differences between the
claimed invention and prior art will not result in a different function or give
unexpected results. Id. at 16-17. Appellant submits that Abdelmalek
expressly directs a person skilled in the art to cool the gases exiting boiler
140, and therefore “feeding a gas that has not undergone thermal treatments
as claimed by Appellant "results in a different function" in comparison to the
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
9
cited prior art.” Id. at 17. The Examiner points out that it would have been
obvious “to remove or omit a heat exchanger that extracts a portion of the
heat from the recycled gases if it were desired to have higher temperatures in
the gasification chamber” and further that such “omission would result in
only expected results (increased gasifier temperatures and reduced thermal
energy recovery), which may be desirable and necessary depending on the
temperatures needed in the gasifier, which is dependent upon the type of fuel
being gasified.” Ans. 17. Further , Appellant’s Specification discloses the
presence of a post-combustion chamber 43 (i.e., heat exchanger) positioned
downstream of the combustion chamber, as well as a scrubber, suggesting
that the post-combustion chamber of Abdelmalek can also be eliminated and
such omission would yield expected results. See Spec., paras. [0042],
[0050] – [0052]; fig. 2. As such, Appellant’s argument that eliminating a
post combustion process in Abdelmalek or Dauvergne would result in a
different function or unexpected result is not persuasive.
Appellant contends that the prior art provides no motivation to modify
the mixing process of Dauvergne with the gas circulation system of
Abdelmalek, and that the reason provided by the Examiner “to improve
mixing” is conclusory and “provides no explicit analysis of why a person
would have found the fluid conveying system of Abdelmalek insufficient,
contrary to the requirements of KSR.” App. Br. 18. Further, Appellant
contends that the Examiner has provided no evidence in support of the
allegation that it is known to produce fluidized bed gasifiers with a single
high pressure duct. App. Br. 18. In reply, the Examiner reiterates that the
fluidized bed gasifier of Abdelmalek inherently discloses a premixing step,
and Dauvergne was alternatively cited to teach a pre-mixing step. Ans. 17.
The Examiner reasonably concludes that “the pre-mixing step would reduce
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
10
the cost and complexity of the gasifier because only one return duct would
be necessary instead of two because the gases would be mixed.” Id. at 18.
The reason provided by the Examiner to combine the gas circulation system
of Abdelmalek with the pre-mixing process of Dauvergne is expressly
articulated and Appellant’s argument is not persuasive to apprise us of error
in this articulation.5
Appellants also contend that the Examiner improperly used hindsight
to combine the teachings of Abdelmalek and Dauvergne. App. Br. 18. The
Examiner cited In re McLaughlin as support that “any judgment on
obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight
reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made,
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant's
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” Ans. 18, citing In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971). Appellant’s assertion of error
does not explain why the Examiner’s articulated reasons to combine the
references are ineffective to support the conclusion of obviousness with
respect to claim 1 as discussed supra. Because the Examiner’s reasoning
includes rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s modification was
arrived at using hindsight.
Based on the record before us, Appellant has not directed us to
persuasive evidence that the Examiner’s findings or conclusion of
obviousness is in error. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
claims 3, and 6-8.

5 See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988, cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
11

Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation
that the semiwater gas is produced by “directing a vapor jet and a gas jet at
the high temperature onto the combustible material, which is arranged on a
grid, and wherein the heated material is urged to the combustion chamber by
moving along the grid.” Clms. Appx. The Examiner finds that Abdelmalek
discloses that the semiwater gas is produced in the pyrolysis chamber (120)
by directing a vapor jet and a gas jet at the high temperature onto the
combustible material. Ans. 6, citing Abdelmalek, col. 3, ll. 21-23; col. 5, ll.
46-49. The Examiner relies on Dauvergne to disclose that the combustible
material is arranged on a grid and the heated material is urged to the
combustion chamber by moving along the grid, and reasons it would have
been obvious to combine the gasifier of Abdelmalek with the grated gasifier
and combustion chamber of Dauvergne “because such a combination would
have produced the added benefit of allowing the gasification of materials
that are not easily fluidized, such as heavier or bulkier materials.” Ans. 6,
citing Dauvergne, col. 3, ll. 5-14; fig. 1.
In addition to failing to teach the claim limitations of claim 1,
Appellant argues that Abdelmalek and Dauvergne fail to teach (a) "directing
a vapor jet and a gas jet at the high temperature onto the combustible
material, which is arranged on a grid" and (b) "the heated material is urged
to the combustion chamber by moving along the grid." App. Br. 19. Reply
Br. 9. According to Appellant, Abdelmalek teaches fine particles of coal are
blown into the gasifier by a pressure blower, and that the gas and vapor jets
are directed onto the combustion material while the combustible material is
suspended in gasifier 120. Id. citing Abdelmalek, col. 5, ll. 43-45.
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
12
Appellant further contends that Dauvergne teaches that the ash falls due to
gravity and not movement of the grid. App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 9.
We note that Abdelmalek discloses that in the gasifier, “carbon
dioxide and steam are injected to provide a proper fluidization velocity, as
the coal feed dries, devolatizes and reacts with the carbon dioxide and steam
thermochemically to produce synthesis gas high in carbon monoxide and
hydrogen.” Abdelmalek, col. 6, ll. 22-26. Further, the Examiner reasonably
explains that Dauvergne describes how “ash is urged to the combustion
chamber as a result of the grid (12) rotating and being constructed of a
coarse mesh,” and further the “rotational movement of the grid (12) aides in
moving the ash through the mesh and into the combustion chamber.” Ans.
18, citing Dauvergne, col. 3, ll. 7-13. Also, we note that Dauvergne teaches
that the solids initially fall onto the first combustion bed 12, and that
combustion bed is a rotatable grate having a relatively coarse mesh that
allows the unburned particles to pass through to the third chamber 44.
Dauvergne, col. 3, ll. 7-13. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Abdelmalek discloses
producing semiwater gas in the pyrolysis chamber by directing a vapor jet
and gas jet at high temperature onto the combustible material, and
Dauvergne discloses arranging combustible material on a grid, and the
heated material is urged to the combustion chamber by moving along the
grid. We sustain the rejection of claim 2.

Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation
that “burnt gas is conveyed from the combustion chamber to the pyrolysis
chamber by supplying a fluid within a duct through an opening in the duct,
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
13
the duct connecting the combustion and the pyrolysis chambers, the fluid
having a speed sufficient to cause a suction of the burnt gas inside the duct.”
Clms. Appx. The Examiner relies on Dauvergne to disclose
a conveying fluid current that is supplied within a duct that
connects the chambers (see Fig. 1 reproduced below), the
conveying fluid is supplied to the duct directed towards the
arrival chamber at a speed sufficient to cause a suction of the
gas inside the duct (Col. 2, line 68 - Col. 3, line 2), wherein
conveying a gas from the pyrolysis chamber to the combustion
chamber is made sending in the duct variably oxygenated gas as
conveying fluid (Col. 2, lines 57-60).
Ans. 7. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to combine the
gasification plant of Abdelmalek with the venturi recirculation duct of
Dauvergne to eliminate the need for separate lines and pumps to supply the
gasifier with heated gas and vapor. Id. Further, the Examiner reasons it
would have been obvious based on Dauvergne
to convey the burnt gas to the pyrolysis chamber by sending in
the duct water vapor as conveying fluid, the water vapor being
used to obtain water gas in the pyrolysis chamber, because such
a combination would have produced the added benefit of the
elimination of separate lines and pumps to supply the
recirculated flue gases and water vapor to the pyrolysis
chamber.
Id.
Appellant claims the Examiner erred since Dauvergne teaches that the
duct is disposed to eject the burned gas into the combustion chamber, and
not into the pyrolysis chamber as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 22-23; Reply
Br. 9. According to Appellant, the gases exiting the duct of Dauvergne do
not travel to first chamber 14 because Dauvergne does not teach that the
combustion bed is crossed by fumes coming from second chamber 38. Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s observation that Appellant’s argument is not
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
14
commensurate with the scope of claim 5, since the feature that the
“combustion bed is crossed by fumes coming from the second chamber” is
not recited in claim 5. Ans. 19. Therefore, Appellant’s argument does not
apprise us of error on the Examiner’s part.
Appellant further argues that Dauvergne fails to teach the limitation
that the duct ejects vapor, and instead teaches a combination of flue gases
from conduit (30) and deoxidizing gases from ejector means 32. App. Br.
23, citing Dauvergne, col. 2, ll. 56-60. The Examiner adequately responds
that Abdelmalek teaches that it is well known in the art for the combustion
process to result in flue gases composed of carbon dioxide and water vapor;
and reasons that a duct containing flue gases would inherently contain a
vapor. Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error on the Examiner’s
part. The rejection of claim 5 is sustained.

Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation
of “feeding the combustible material in the pyrolysis chamber by
compressing and pushing forward the combustible material through a
tapered duct, the passage reducing a volume of the combustible material.”
Clms. Appx. The Examiner admits that Abdelmalek fails to disclose that the
tapered duct has toothed tracks, and reasons that it would have been obvious
“to replace hopper style tapered duct which relies on gravity with a
horizontally oriented tapered duct that relies on a toothed track to convey the
material because such a modification requires only a simple substitution of
one conveyance means for another, both conveyance means operating in the
same way for the same purpose.” Ans. 8. In addition to the deficiencies of
Abdelmalek and Dauvergne discussed with respect to claim 1, Appellant
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
15
contends that the Examiner errs since the hopper and pressure blower of
Abdelmalek is different than the limitation of “feeding the combustible
material in the pyrolysis chamber by compressing and pushing forward the
combustible material through a tapered duct, the passage reducing a volume
of the combustible material” as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 22, citing
Abdelmalek, col. 5, ll. 45-49; fig. 1. Appellant further explains that the
combustible material in Abdelmalek is not compressed and pushed forward,
but instead is pulled via suction from a blower. App. Br. 23-24.
The Examiner reasonably explains how the operation of the hopper
causes fuel material to moves through the tapered duct at the bottom of the
hopper, and is pushed forward and compressed due to gravity and the weight
of the material above it. Ans. 20. Appellant's contention that the
Specification, “clearly and unambiguously points to externally generated
pressure and movement” that “‘compress and push forward’ the combustible
material” is not persuasive since claim 9 does not include the limitation of
“externally generated pressure and movement.” Reply Br. 9-10, citing
Spec., para. [0042]. We decline to read limitations from the Specification
into the claims.6 The rejection of claim 9 is sustained.

Claim 4: Abdelmalek, Dauvergne and Caffyn
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation
gas at the high temperature produced in the combustion
chamber crosses a post-combustion chamber within which a
further heating is effected by feeding a current containing
oxygen to complete combustion, the burnt gas produced in the
post-combustion chamber having a low oxygen content and
being in part sent to the pyrolysis chamber.

6 See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184-85 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
16
Clms. Appx. The Examiner relies on Caffyn to teach this limitation,
reasoning it would have been obvious “to combine the gasification plant of
'652 with the afterburner/particle separator of '958 because such a
combination would have produced the added benefit of complete
combustion of the fuel which increases the overall efficiency of the waste
disposal unit by allowing for additional energy recovery.” Ans. at 9-10,
citing Caffyn, col. 5, ll. 49-52; col. 7, ll. 52-59; col. 8, ll. 4-7; col. 9, ll. 15-
24.
In addition to failing to teach the claim limitations of claim 1,
Appellant contends that Caffyn does not teach a post-combustion chamber,
since the secondary stationary oxidation chamber 16 of Caffyn is a
combustion chamber and not a post-combustion chamber. App. Br. 20-21.
Alternatively, Appellant asserts that the secondary stationary oxidation
chamber 16 of Caffyn does not produce gas that is "in part sent to the
pyrolysis chamber" because the exhaust of Caffyn is sent to waste heat
boiler 26 rather than to rotary primary oxidation chamber 14. App. Br. 20-
21; Reply Br. 9. As acknowledged by the Examiner, the primary
combustion chamber (14) and secondary combustion chamber (16) each
admit air for the purposes of combustion. Ans. 19, citing Caffyn, col. 3, l.
50 - col. 4, l. 6. Appellant does not point to any features in claim 1 that
distinguishes the claimed combustion chamber and post combustion
chamber from the primary combustion chamber and secondary combustion
chamber of Caffyn. A reference does not have to satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
test to disclose a claimed feature. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2009).
Next, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reason to combine the
references is in err since Caffyn teaches that energy recovery is achieved
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
17
through waste heat boiler 26, not by recirculation to the pyrolysis chamber.
App. Br. 21. Appellant’s argument regarding the teachings of Caffyn does
not apprise or persuade us of error in the Examiner’s reason to combine the
teachings of Abdelmalek, Dauvergne, and Caffyn, which is expressly
articulated and is supported by rational underpinnings, as required in making
a rejection based on obviousness. The rejection of claim 4 is sustained.

Claims 10-14 and 16-20: Abdelmalek and Dauvergne
Appellant combines several rejections, arguing claims 10-14 and 16-
20 together as a group. App. Br. 24-28. We select independent claim 10 as
representative, treating claims 11-14, and 16-20 as standing or falling with
representative claim 10.
The Examiner restates the findings and reason to combine
Abdelmalek and Dauvergne as set forth with respect to claim 1. Ans. 10-15.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred since Abdelmalek does not
disclose the limitation of "feeding a gas at high temperature drawn from the
combustion chamber" since Abdelmalek discloses that the flue gas exits the
boiler and is cooled in a condensing heat exchanger 180. App. Br. 24-25.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra in
connection with claim 1.
Appellant also argues that although the Examiner states that it is
known to produce fluidized bed gasifiers with a single high pressure duct,
the Examiner has not provided any evidence in support of this allegation.
App. Br. 27. Again, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive for the reasons
discussed supra in connection with claim 1.
Next, Appellant argues that the prior art provides no motivation to
“use the oxidizing gases at 36 of Dauvergne over the gas circulation system
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
18
taught instead by Abdelmalek.” App. Br. 27. Appellant contends that the
Examiner’s proposed rationale to improve mixing is in error “since a person
skilled in the art would have mixed gas and vapor and injected gas and vapor
into combustion chamber 38 of Dauvergne before the vapor-gas mixture is
transferred to pyrolysis chamber 14.” Id. Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive for the reasons discussed supra in connection with claim 1. We
sustain the rejection of claim 10 and claims 11-14, and 16-20.

Claim 15: Abdelmalek, Dauvergne
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation
of “directional elements configured to provide a gas flow obtained during the
heat treatment of the combustible material to the pyrolyzing and the
combustion chambers.” The Examiner found that Abdelmalek further
discloses “directional elements configured to provide a gas flow obtained
during the heat treatment of the combustible material to the pyrolyzing (120)
and the combustion chambers (140) (Figs. 1 & 2; directional arrows show
the path of gases to and from the gasifier and boiler).” Ans. 12. Appellant
contends that claim 15 requires that the directional elements be physical
obstructive elements that change the course of direction of the flow of gas,
and that the Examiner “purports to equate the ‘directional elements’ with a
pipe, contrary to the definition of such elements in the specification and to
the understanding of a person skilled in the art derived from the
specification.” App. Br. 28-29. In reply, the Examiner points out that claim
15 does not recite a limitation corresponding to refractory material suitable
for deflecting a flow of gas to determined zones of the apparatus. Ans. 20.
Although Appellant contends that the Specification provides support for
“directional elements” to be “diaphragms made of a refractory material” and
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
19
not pipes as proposed by Examiner, we again decline to read limitations
from the Specification into the claims. Reply Br. 10-11, citing Spec., para.
[0034]. We sustain the rejection of claim 15.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
20
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting:

I must respectfully disagree with my colleagues as to the Examiner’s
reasoning leading to the conclusion that it would have been obvious to
modify the Abdelmalek system and process to provide to a pyrolysis
chamber a “burnt gas drawn downstream from the combustion chamber
without intervening thermal treatments,” as required by claim 1.7 The
Examiner acknowledges that Abdelmalek does not disclose this claim
limitation, but maintains that, “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to the [sic,
have] eliminated the flue gas cleaning system and return the flue gas from
the combustion chamber to the pyrolysis chamber without intervening
thermal treatments.” Ans. 5. The Examiner cites to In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d
553 (CCPA 1975) for the proposition that the omission of an element and its
function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same
functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. Id.
In responding to arguments made by Appellant to the effect that
Abdelmalek expressly teaches that the exhaust from boiler 140 is
beneficially cooled in a condensing heat exchanger 180 and then processed
in a separation plant 190 to extract carbon dioxide which is fed back to
gasifier 120 (App. Br. 15, 17), the Examiner appears to shift his position,
maintaining that it would have been obvious “to remove or omit a heat
exchanger that extracts a portion of the heat from the recycled gases if it
were desired to have higher temperatures in the gasification chamber,” and
that “[t]he omission would result in only expected results” in the form of

7 Independent claim 10 includes a similar limitation calling for the feeding
of “a gas at high temperature drawn from the combustion chamber without
intervening thermal treatments”.
Appeal 2011-007987
Application 11/570,419
21
increased gasifier temperatures and reduced thermal energy recovery. Ans.
17.
As such, it is, at the outset, unclear whether the Examiner is proposing
to omit the entire flue gas cleaning system of Abdelmalek, or only a heat
exchange portion of that system. Either way, the Examiner has failed to
adequately establish that the remaining elements will perform the same
functions as before any such modification. If the entire flue gas cleaning
system were to be eliminated, the Examiner has failed to address whether the
resulting operation of gasifier 120 of Abdelmalek, which, as disclosed,
receives a feed of carbon dioxide that has been separated from other flue
gases, hazardous metal vapors and nitrogen oxides (Abdelmalek, col. 6, ll. 6-
10, Fig. 1), would operate in the same manner with the feed not having been
so treated. If only the heat exchanger is proposed to be omitted, the
Examiner has not addressed whether the desired separation of carbon
dioxide would predictably be achieved at the higher temperature and with no
condensation having taken place. Further, with no condensate being
generated by a condensing heat exchanger, the Examiner has not
demonstrated how the steam generator 150 and water treatment plant 195,
which processes the condensate from the condensing heat exchanger, would
perform the same functions as they would after the proposed modification is
effected.
I would therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and
10, and of those claims depending therefrom.

hh