Ex Parte Nawawi-Lansade et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

13255021 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/255,021 12/20/2011 Delphine Nawawi-Lansade
24112 7590 08/03/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4195-111 3000
EXAMINER
BOWERS, ERIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1653
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2016 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 DELPHINE NAWAWI-LANSADE,
MICHEL COEYTAUX, and STEPHANE DELERIS
Appeal2014-007732
Application 13/255,021
Technology Center 1600
Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, JEFFREY N. FRED MAN, and
RYAN H. FLAX, Administrative Patent Judges.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
for producing essentially non-putrescible sludge and energy. The Examiner
rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm, but designate our affirmance as New Grounds of Rejection.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Veolia Water Solutions &
Technologies Support (see Br. 2).
Appeal2014-007732
Application 13/255,021
Statement of the Case
Background
"Municipal or industrial wastewater contains a certain proportion of
soluble and particulate organic pollution" (Spec. 1: 10-11 ). "The soluble
organic portion of the pollution, at least a major part of it, can be treated by
the application of biological treatment processes" (Spec. 1: 16-17). "The
biological treatment of water is accompanied by the formation of sludge,
known as 'biological sludge' or 'secondary sludge', constituting organic
wastes" (Spec. 1 :21-23). "To treat these mixed sludges in order to break
them down and make them non-putrescible and inoffensive, various
techniques have been proposed" (Spec. 1 :25-26).
The Claims
Claims 14 and 16-20 are on appeal. As Appellants do not argue the
claims separately, we focus our analysis on claim 14, and claims 16-20
stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Independent claim
14 reads as follows:
14. Method for producing essentially non-putrescible sludge and
energy, said method comprising the following steps:
(i) obtaining digested sludges by primary sludge digestion;
(ii) obtaining a first aqueous effluent and digested sludges at
least partly dehydrated by a first liquid-solid separation of the digested
sludges obtained at the step (i);
(iii) obtaining digested sludges at least partially dehydrated and
hydrolyzed by thermal hydrolysis at a temperature of 120°C to 180°C
of the at least partially dehydrated, digested sludges obtained at the
step (ii);
(iv) digestion of the at least partially dehydrated and hydrolyzed
sludges obtained at the step (iii);
( v) after digesting the at least partially dehydrated and
hydrolyzed sludges, directing the dehydrated and hydrolyzed sludges
2
Appeal2014-007732
Application 13/255,021
to a second liquid-solids separation process and producing a second
aqueous effluent and additional digested sludges;
said process further comprising:
- a step for recovering biogases formed during said digestion
and said primary digestion and
- a step for producing energy from said biogas comprising a
sub-step for producing energy needed to implement said
thermal hydrolysis and a sub-step for producing surplus
energy,
the entirety of said biogas being used to produce
electricity.
The Issue
The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Jensen, 2 Palm, 3 and Ishida4 (Final Act. 3-8).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence support
the Examiner's conclusion that Jensen, Palm, and Ishida render claim 14
obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches that "decantation of the water is
accompanied by the formation of sludge, known as "primary sludge"
consisting of a mix of particles and water that constitutes organic waste"
(Spec. 1:13-15).
2. The Specification teaches that the "second separation means 17
are advantageously similar to the first separation means 13. They have
means for discharging a second effluent comprising a piping 18 and means
2 Jensen et al., WO 2006/042551 Al, published Apr. 27, 2006.
3 Palm, C., US 2006/0011757 Al, published Jan. 19, 2006.
4 Ishida et al., US 4,354,936, issued Oct. 19, 1982.
3
Appeal2014-007732
Application 13/255,021
for discharging dehydrated digestate comprising a piping 19" (Spec. 13: 18-
21 ).
3. Jensen teaches:
a method of producing biogas from organic waste is provided,
comprising the consecutive steps of:
i) digestion of the organic waste in a first reactor;
ii) hydrolysis of the digested organic waste in an anaerobic
hydrolysis tank; and
iii) digestion of the hydrolyzed organic waste in a second
reactor;
wherein evolved gases are removed from the anaerobic
hydrolysis tank.
(Jensen 2: 13-18).
4. Figure 4 of Jensen is reproduced below:
f'-'-·"-"""' .............. 1 ......... ...
~ .
' ~
:• :
' .
;7:"M~~~~"i'°1 .. ~.}"~~--{~~} .... ··:~::f~:J .............. ~ ... i:.:·.·.~~-· .. ,l~.·.:,~ ... l: .... :; .. ~ .................................... _. ........ ~{t\%~~;a.\'JtV
•• ,.._ ....... , ...................... '&~~'$..':)."";
:·-· .... .._ ................... --.. .. ,. ···-· ... _.._ ..................... ,. ......... -..,,, .. : ~ r~~~'
,...-.... t..... ~i:~~-.:f;::.,,..;.~
~j~~ .............. J ~~~
~- .~:r_ ..... , >.. ••• ~··--'
~
,••'-'-H_ • ._._ • ., ..................................... ,~.,:~ ...... -•• -••• .._._.,~~ ...
. ~'"'~ ... ,'..~.~'~,'-;·:·f··~,~ r l r"~:::~
·· · L-{kr~....{~,...·-.y[:"'~ .....·''.~:; ........ ~l ••. ····'I$~;:>:.,~.i;-........... ·/~··-""···r···'
,___ ............................ , .. ,
~ + ~ ' .................................... ~ ... ~ ...................................... _,_, .................. L{~}·····j I
.,. 4
~· u . .. lb'"•'
As explained by Jensen:
Fig. 4 schematically illustrates another biogas producing facility 10
for producing biogas from livestock dung mixed with straw ....
4
Appeal2014-007732
Application 13/255,021
Livestock dung is mixed in 2 and optionally heat-treated ... The
optionally heat-treated matter is fed into a first reactor 3 to be digested
by bacteria for formation of biogas. . . . A separator 4 separates
particles ... and the separated particles may be de-watered in a
second separator 5 . . . The separated matter is entered into the
hydrolysis tank 6 for hydrolysis. . . . A partitioning device 1 cuts
straw ... The cut straws and hydrolysed material from tank 6 are
mixed in a tank 2b .... The mixture is digested in a second reactor
3b. A separator 4b separates particles ... and the separated particles
may be de-watered in another separator 5b whereby the dry matter
content reaches 10 - 15 % dry matter.
(Jensen 20: 13 to 21 :3).
5. Jensen teaches that "[f]or some materials, performing the
hydrolysis at higher pressures than ambient pressure, such as the saturation
pressure at a temperature of 125 °C, 190 °C, etc, may optimise the efficiency
and economics of the biogas producing facility. Increased temperature
decreases the duration of the hydrolysis" (Jensen 9:30-33).
6. Palm teaches that:
The nutrient-rich solid waste is removed from the waste sludge in the
digestion reactor 12 via a discharge opening 44 disposed in the lower
part of the reactor as presented in the figure. Methane CH3, carbon
dioxide C02 and any other gases formed in the reactor are extracted
via the discharge pipe 46 to the gas chamber 48. The gas can be used
as combustion gas in a combustion boiler 50, to produce hot water
and/ or steam. The steam can be used for electricity generation in a
steam turbine plant 52 and/or for heating in a process, such as heating
sludge, in the heat exchanger 42.
(Palm if 63).
5
Appeal2014-007732
Application 13/255,021
Principles of Law
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Analysis
Jensen, in Figure 4, teaches a method comprising the steps of:
(i) obtaining digested sludges by digestion of mixed livestock dung and
straw in a first reactor 3 using bacteria for formation of biogas (FF 4 );
(ii) performing a liquid-solid separation using a separator 4 where an
aqueous effluent is generated when the separated particles are "de-watered
in a second separator 5" (FF 4); (iii) transferring the resulting digested, de-
watered sludges into a hydrolysis tank 6 for hydrolysis (FF 4) and Jensen
teaches that the hydrolysis reaction may occur at temperatures including
125 °C and 190 °C (FF5) as well as other overlapping ranges (see Jensen
10:2---6); (iv) mixing the dehydrated and hydrolysed material from tank 6
with straw and digesting the mixture in a second reactor 3b (FF 4); and (v)
directing the resulting dehydrated, hydrolysed and digested material from
second reactor 3b to second liquid solid separator 4b where the material is
then "de-watered in another separator 5b" (FF 4).
The Examiner acknowledges that "Jensen does not teach the use of
the recovered biogas to produce energy for thermal hydrolysis or surplus
energy" (Ans. 4), but relies upon Palm to suggest that gas generated in solid
waste processing "can be used as combustion gas . . . for electricity
generation ... or for heating in a process, such as heating sludge" (FF 6).
6
Appeal2014-007732
Application 13/255,021
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the ordinary artisan
"would have a reasonable expectation that combining the dual digestion and
thermal hydrolysis method of Jensen with the milling and generation of
energy from biogas of Palm would successfully result in a more efficient and
cost-effective waste digestion and biogas production process" (Ans. 6).
Appellants contend:
Even after combining Palm with Jensen, the examiner recognizes that
the modified Jensen process still does not show the step of:
After digesting the at least partially dehydrated and hydrolyzed
sludges, directing the dehydrated and hydrolyzed sludges to a
second liquid-solids separation process and producing a second
aqueous effluent and additional digested sludges.
Claim 14, i-f (v); Final Office Action, pg. 7.
(Br. 8).
\Vhile i\.ppellants correctly state the Examiner's position, the
Examiner has overlooked Jensen's clear teaching of "a second liquid-solids
separation process to produce a second aqueous effluent and additional
digested sludges" (Ans. 5).
In fact, as discussed above, Jensen specifically teaches that after the
hydrolysis step in tank 6 (i.e., step (iii) of claim 14) the resulting material is
subject to a second digestion in the second reactor 3b (i.e., step (iv) of claim
14) followed by a second separation in separator 4b and a dewatering to
produce a second aqueous effluent in separator 5b (FF 4).
7
Appeal2014-007732
Application 13/255,021
Thus, Jensen expressly teaches producing a second aqueous effluent
and additional digested sludges (FF 4 ). 5 We therefore, do not (and need not)
rely upon the Ishida reference for this limitation.
Because our reasoning differs from that of the Examiner, and because
we rely upon portions of the Jensen reference that were not expressly relied
upon by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as New Grounds of
Rejection to provide Appellants with an opportunity to respond.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion that Jensen, Palm,
and Ishida render claim 14 obvious.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Jensen, Palm, and Ishida. Claims 16-20 fall with
claim 14. However, we designate our affirmance as New Grounds of
Rejection.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
5 We do not rely upon the Examiner's unreasonably broad interpretation that
Ishida's drying process would result in water vapor that "would intrinsically
condense at some point in the future simply by the actions of the Earth's
hydrologic cycle, such as in the form of fog or precipitation" (Ans. 11 ).
"The protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
during examination does not include giving claims a legally incorrect
interpretation." In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
8
Appeal2014-007732
Application 13/255,021
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellants,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new
ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an
amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which,
in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims,
appellants may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under §
41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing
must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity
the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in
entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds
upon which rehearing is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
9