Ex Parte Newman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

12870202 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/870,202 08/27/2010
25461 7590 07/28/2016
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL
SUITE 3100, PROMENADE II
1230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA, GA 30309-3592
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Newman
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.
058217.010 9355
EXAMINER
HARRIS, WESLEY G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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):
ATLdocketing@sgrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL NEWMAN
Appeal 2016-005860 1,2
Application 12/870,202
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed Aug. 27,
2010), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Sept. 29, 2015), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed May 16, 2016), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed May 21, 2015) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed Mar. 25, 2016).
2 "The real party in interest ... is US Micropower, Inc." Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2016-005860
Application 12/870,202
According to Appellant, the invention is directed to "systems and
methods for generating electrical power using a solar power system
comprising pressurized pipes for transporting liquid water. . . . Because the
pipes inside the solar collectors are pressurized, the water flowing
therethrough can be heated well above the ordinary boiling point of water
(100°C)." Spec. ,-r 8. Independent claims 1, 16, 20, and 27 are the only
independent claims under appeal. See Appeal Br., Claims App. We
reproduced claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed claims.
Id.
1. A pressurized solar power system comprising:
at least one solar collector;
a closed loop pipe containing a heat transfer liquid having
a boiling temperature at one atmosphere of pressure, wherein
said pipe is positioned such that concentrated solar energy from
said solar collector is focused on a portion of said pipe thereby
heating the transfer liquid to an operating temperature that is
above the boiling temperature of the heat transfer liquid at the
one atmosphere of pressure;
a sealed bubble pressurizer attached to said pipe and
comprising an internal chamber, where vapor of the transfer
liquid can form in an upper section of the chamber but cannot be
released, thereby self-regulating the vapor pressure of the heat
transfer liquid contained in said pipe to maintain the liquid in its
liquid state in said pipe;
and
a heat exchanger;
wherein a portion of said pipe enters said heat exchanger.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kraus (US 4,055,948, iss. Nov. 1, 1977).
2
Appeal2016-005860
Application 12/870,202
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable Kraus and van Kuijk (US 4,213,563, iss. July 22, 1980).
The Examiner rejects claims 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kraus and Rubak (US 7 ,340,899 B 1, iss. Mar. 11, 2008).
The Examiner rejects claims 24, 25, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraus, Rubak, and van Kuijk.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kraus, van Kuijk, and Benyaminy (US 2011/0277470 Al,
pub. Nov. 17, 2011).
The Examiner rejects claims 26 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kraus, van Kuijk, Rubak, and Benyaminy.
See Final Action 3-16; see also Answer 3.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires
a sealed bubble pressurizer attached to said pipe and comprising
an internal chamber, where vapor of the transfer liquid [that
flows through the closed loop pipe] can form in an upper section
of the chamber but cannot be released, thereby self-regulating the
vapor pressure of the heat transfer liquid contained in said pipe
to maintain the liquid in its liquid state in said pipe.
Appeal Br., Claims App. In response to Appellant's argument that the
Examiner erroneously finds that Kraus teaches the claimed sealed chamber
(see, e.g., Appeal Br. 11, 13-22), the Examiner determines the following:
From the reference it appears that the inert gas is initially inserted
into the tank at a certain pressure and remains at that pressure
throughout the operation of the system. For this reason, the tank
(30) in the reference (Kraus) would be able to perform the
function of the sealed bubble pressurizer outlined in independent
claims 1, 16, 20 and 27. Since the pressure of the inert gas
3
Appeal2016-005860
Application 12/870,202
remains constant it will be possible for the heat transfer fluid to
increase to a temperature that will be above the boiling
temperature of the heat transfer fluid at the pressure applied by
the inert gas within the tank. This would result in the heat
transfer fluid partially vaporizing and the vapor of the heat
transfer fluid would settle in the upper portion of the tank in
Kraus.
Answer 4. Restated, and using the terms used in Appellant's claim 1, the
Examiner determines that although Kraus discloses a pressurizer filled with
an inert gas (that is not a vapor from the transfer liquid), under certain
conditions a portion of the transfer liquid will, in fact, vaporize and be
located in an upper portion of the pressurizer. The Examiner's
determination does not appear to be based on a preponderance of the
evidence, and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection. See Reply Br. 3-6.
Independent claims 16, 20, and 27 recite limitations similar to those
discussed above (see Appeal Br., Claims App.), and the Examiner relies on
similar determinations in the rejections of the claims (see, e.g., Final Action
7, 9, 12-13, Answer 3--4). Thus, inasmuch as we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 16, 20, and 27. We
further do not sustain the rejections of the remaining claims, because these
claims depend from independent claims 1, 16, 20, and 27, and the Examiner
does not indicate that any other reference remedies the deficiencies of the
rejections of the independent claims.
4
Appeal2016-005860
Application 12/870,202
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-7
and 16-30.
REVERSED
5