Ex parte Norais

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 19, 1999

08413284 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 1999)

Application for patent filed March 30, 1995. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was
not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MARCEL NORAIS
____________
Appeal No. 98-0608
Application No. 08/413,2841
____________
HEARD: May 5, 1999
____________
Before CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge, McCANDLISH, Senior
Administrative Patent Judge and ABRAMS, Administrative Patent
Judge.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 11-13, 16 and 17. Claims 7,
Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 2
Application No. 08/413,284
9, 10, 14, 15 and 18-20 have been indicated as containing
allowable subject matter.
The appellant’s invention is directed to a method and
apparatus for the separation by filtration of a solid phase
and a liquid phase from sludge. The subject matter before us
is illustrated by reference to claim 1 which, along with the
other claims on appeal, has been reproduced in an appendix to
the Appeal Brief.
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Alvord 1,097,157 May 19,
1914
Wiederkehr 4,718,337 Jan. 12,
1988
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-13 and 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Alvord.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Alvord in view of Wiederkehr.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 3
Application No. 08/413,284
The arguments of the appellant in opposition to the
positions taken by the examiner are set forth in the Brief and
the Reply Brief.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Answer and the
Briefs. The determinations we have made and the reasoning
behind them are set forth below.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
It is axiomatic that anticipation is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element
of the claimed invention. See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising a
filtration chamber and a filter having at least one planar
Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 4
Application No. 08/413,284
surface “for exerting pressure on the sludge during
filtration,” and being movable “between a filtration position
in which said filter forms a wall of said filtration chamber
and a scraping position.” Alvord discloses a press in which
both of the press elements are movable between a position in
which they form the walls of the press chamber and positions
in which the pressed cake is ejected from the machine.
However, contrary to the examiner’s position, we cannot agree
that either press plate also functions as a filter to separate
liquid from the solid phase cake. While the specification
contains the statement that the Alvord press is “of the filter
type” (page 1, line 35), there is no clue as to what this
means, and there is no explicit statement that a filter is
incorporated into either press element or that they perform a
filtering function. Nor, in our view, can it be discerned
from the drawings that either press element inherently
functions as a filter. From our perspective, there thus
exists no evidence upon which to base a conclusion that the
Alvord press teaches using a movable press element as a
filter.
Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 5
Application No. 08/413,284
Another deficiency in Alvord from the standpoint of
anticipation is that it fails to establish that the piston/
chamber movement is carried out in “substantially liquid-tight
manner.” There is no such explanation in the disclosure, nor
is there a listing of the materials that are intended to be
put through the device from which it can be determined that
they contain liquid which will be removed during the pressing
operation. Absent reason for such construction, it cannot be
concluded that the piston/chamber movement is substantially
liquid-tight. Finally, Alvord fails to disclose or teach a
scraper device that “is capable of sweeping the surface of the
filter . . . in order to detach the solid phase cake.” In
view of the description in the appellant’s specification and
the arguments advanced in the Briefs, we interpret “sweeping”
to mean that the scraper traverses the full extent of the
movable element. This is not the case in the Alvord machine,
where it is clear from the drawings that the cake ejector
traverses only a very small portion of the extent of the press
elements; there is no requirement that it do so, for the press
elements are vertical and a slight movement of the ejector
Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 6
Application No. 08/413,284
will cause the cake to be detached from them and fall from the
machine.
For the reasons set forth above, the Section 102
rejection cannot be sustained against independent claim 1 or,
it follows, against claims 2-6, 8, 11 or 12, which depend
therefrom.
Independent claims 13 and 16 are directed to a method of
separation by filtration. Both of these claims include the
steps of introducing a quantity of sludge to be filtered into
a filtration chamber “one wall of which is comprised of a
substantially planar surface of a filter in a filtration
position,” and scraping this surface to “sweep” said cake off
of the surface. We find Alvord to be deficient here as an
anticipatory reference for reasons that were explained above
with regard to claim 1. This being the case, the Section 102
rejection of claims 13 and 16 also is not sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, has been rejected
as being unpatentable over Alvord in view of Wiederkehr, which
was cited for its teaching of utilizing two presses in series.
The deficiencies cited above in the discussion of the Section
Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 7
Application No. 08/413,284
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings2
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
102 rejection with regard to claim 16 are not alleviated by
evaluating Alvord in the light of the test for obviousness,2
or by considering the additional teachings of Wiederkehr. We
therefore will not sustain this rejection.
SUMMARY
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 8
Application No. 08/413,284
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH ) APPEALS
Senior Administrative Patent Judge
) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
NEA/jlb
Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 9
Application No. 08/413,284
PENNIE & EDMONDS
1155 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036-2711