Ex Parte Nguyen et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 6, 201010857188 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 6, 2010) Copy Citation 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. 10/857,188 05/28/2004 Thanh Tri Nguyen API-1153US (COS-932) 3982 25264 7590 10/06/2010 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC PO BOX 674412 HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412 EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1762 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/06/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte THANH TRI NGUYEN, TOM EUGENE CUSHMAN, JOHN STEVENSON, and ALAN BITZER __________ Appeal 2009-013539 Application 10/857,188 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CHUNG K. PAK, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 18-47. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-013539 Application 10/857,188 2 We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appellants’ invention is said to relate to a mechanically operated kill agent injection system to prevent extreme over pressurization of a reaction vessel due to a runaway chemical reaction (Spec. ¶ [002]). Claims 18, 20, 22, 25, 38, and 40 are illustrative: 18. A safety system for terminating a runaway reaction within a reaction vessel, comprising: a pressurized supply of a kill agent: a flow path between the pressurized kill agent and reaction vessel for conveying the kill agent to the reaction vessel; a pressure activated mechanical barrier with a pressure setting that blocks the flow path: and wherein the mechanical barrier is opened if pressure in a flow line between the barrier and the reaction vessel exceeds the set pressure of the mechanical barrier, thereby transferring the kill agent to the reaction vessel and thereby stopping the runaway reaction. 20. The safety system of claim 18 wherein the mechanical barrier comprises a pilot operated valve. 22. The safety system of claim 18 wherein the barrier comprises a rupture disk located in the flow line between the reaction vessel and the pilot operated valve. 25. A safety injection kill system, comprising: a pressurized supply of a kill agent; a main valve body having first side for connecting to a reaction vessel and a second side for connecting to the pressurized kill agent; a pilot coupled to the main valve body for opening and closing the valve to fluid flow; a flow line coupled between the pilot and reaction vessel, wherein an increase in pressure on the first side of the valve body beyond a set pressure will cause the pilot to open the main valve body in response thereto such that the kill agent may flow through the valve to the reaction vessel. Appeal 2009-013539 Application 10/857,188 3 38. The safety system of claim 25 wherein the kill agent is injected into the reaction vessel via the opened flow line, thereby terminating the reaction and decreasing pressure in the reaction vessel. 40. The safety system of claim 18 comprising a first system that is a stand-alone system that operates without any electrical or computer control and a second system in parallel with said first system that operates with an electronically controlled system Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 18-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Hartley (U.S. Patent 6,365,681 B1, Apr. 2, 2002). 2. Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. With regard to rejection (1), Appellants only argue the subject matter corresponding to dependent claims 20, 22, 38, 40, 43, and 45 (App. Br. 9- 10). REJECTION (1) ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Hartley anticipates the subject matter of independent claim 25 and dependent claims 20, 22, 38, 40, 43, and 45? We decide this issue in the affirmative. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS Initially, we note that Appellants do not specifically contest the Examiner’s rejection of the subject matter of independent claim 18 (App. Br. 9-10). Instead, Appellants focus their arguments to the subject matter of Appeal 2009-013539 Application 10/857,188 4 independent claim 25 and dependent claims 20, 22, 38, 40, 43, and 45 (id.). Specifically, Appellants argue that Hartley fails to teach a non-recloseable mechanical barrier, such as rupture disks, (claims 22, 38, 43, 45) that isolates the reaction vessel from the emergency safety injection kill system, which during normal reactor activity, prevents flow from entering into the line from the reaction vessel (App. Br. 10). Appellants further argue that Hartley does not teach a pilot operated valve to inject a kill agent once the pressure in the line between the valve and the reaction vessel reaches a threshold (claims 20 and 25), and that Hartley’s system requires electrical controls unlike Appellants’ claimed system (claim 40) (App. Br. 10). The Examiner responds to these arguments by stating that the particular argued features are not claimed (Ans. 7-8). Contrary to the Examiner’s position, the argued features are recited in independent claim 25 and dependent claims 20, 22, 38, 40, 43, and 45. The subject matter of these claims was not specifically addressed in the Examiner’s rejection (Ans. 4-5). Because the Examiner does not fully respond to these arguments and fails to direct us to any portion of Hartley that teaches the subject matter of these argued claims, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation with regard to the argued independent claim 25 and the argued dependent claims and claims 21, 23, 28, 31, and 42 that depend from them. We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 20-23, 25, 28, 31, 38, 40, 42, 43, and 45 over Hartley. Because Appellants do not specifically contest the § 102(b) rejection of the independent claim 18, we affirm this rejection of claims 18, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32-37, 39, 41, 44, 46, and 47 over Hartley. Appeal 2009-013539 Application 10/857,188 5 REJECTION (2) ISSUE Did the Examiner err in determining that the claimed subject matter “without any electrical or computer control” in claim 40 fails to comply with the written description requirement of claim 40? We decide this issue in the affirmative. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS The Examiner contends that the negative limitation “without any electrical or computer control” does not have any basis in the original disclosure and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement (Ans. 3). The Examiner contends that the negative limitation “without” is not found in the Specification paragraphs cited by Appellants (Ans. 5). Appellants contend that the Specification describes in various paragraphs and the abstract that no electrical instruments are required (App. Br. 8-9). We agree. While Appellants’ citations to the Specification are incorrect, it is clear to us that paragraph [007] and the abstract, both demonstrate that Appellants were in possession of a first system that is a stand alone system that operates without any electrical or computer control as recited in claim 40. Specifically, the abstract states that “[t]he system functions without an external electrical source” and paragraph [007] states that the emergency safety injection kill system utilize ASME approved devices that require no electrical instruments or automated controls to initiate a kill reaction. Appeal 2009-013539 Application 10/857,188 6 In light of these findings, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 40 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART bar FINA TECHNOLOGY INC P.O. BOX 674412 HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation