Ex Parte Nguyen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 6, 2010

10857188 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 6, 2010)

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