Ex Parte Oklejas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2012

12023194 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/023,194 01/31/2008 Eli Oklejas JR. 9269-000011 7005
27572 7590 11/09/2012
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
MENON, KRISHNAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2012 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 ELI OKLEJAS JR.
____________

Appeal 2011-008560
Application 12/023,194
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008560
Application 12/023,194

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A reverse osmosis system comprising:
a plurality of feed pumps each having a feed pump input and a
feed pump output;
an input manifold in fluid communication with the feed pump
inputs, said input manifold having a first pressure;
a membrane feed manifold in fluid communication with the
feed pump output, said membrane feed manifold having a
second pressure greater than the first pressure;
a plurality of membrane chambers, each in fluid communication
with the membrane feed manifold and generating a permeate
output and a brine output, each brine output in fluid
communication with a brine manifold;
a plurality of booster devices, each having a turbine portion
with a turbine input in fluid communication with the brine
manifold and a pump portion having a booster device pump
input and a booster device pump output, each booster device
pump output in fluid communication with the membrane feed
manifold;
a pump input manifold in fluid communication with the booster
device pump input;
and
a medium pressure pump in fluid communication with the input
manifold and the pump input manifold, said medium pressure
pump generating a third pressure in the pump input manifold
greater than the first pressure and less than the second pressure.
Appeal 2011-008560
Application 12/023,194

3

The Examiner maintains and Appellant requests review of the
following rejections (App. Br. 3):
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Geisler (Peter Geisler et al., Reduction of the Energy Demand for
Seawater RO with the Pressure Exchange System PES, 135 DESALINATION
205 (2001)), in view of Appellants’ admission of prior art represented by
Figures 1-8a.
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Appellants’ admission of prior art represented by Figures 4, 7 and 8a
and Geisler.

OPINION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a multi-stage reverse osmosis
system having a centralized pumping source.1 (Spec. 1).
After thorough consideration of the Examiner’s rejections and
Appellant’s responses we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-
15 over the prior art as exhibited by the combination of the admitted prior art
illustrated in Specification Figures 4, 7 and 8a and Geisler. 2 We AFFIRM
for the reasons presented by the Examiner in add the following.
Appellant’s principle argument is “that the Examiner has manipulated
the teachings of the Geisler reference without regard to the actual teachings

1 Because Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 2-15, these
dependent claims will stand or fall with independent claim 1.
2 Since the references relied upon in both of the stated rejections are the
same, we will address the rejections together. The Examiner only presented
a substantial discussion of Figures 4, 7 and 8a. We will do likewise.
Appeal 2011-008560
Application 12/023,194

4
set forth therein or the actual structure of the claim language.” (App. Br. 7,
8).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. The Examiner
found that the claimed invention (exhibited in Fig 9) differs from the
teaching of Fig 8a only in having a pump in the pump input manifold of the
flow work exchanger (FWE). The Examiner found that Geisler teaches a
reverse osmosis system that teaches the concept of the claimed invention.
(Ans. 4-5). The Examiner found that Figures 4 and 7 exhibit the use of a
turbine as a pressure exchange unit. (Id. at 7). The Examiner found that
adding a pump in the input line of the FWE would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. (Id. at 8). We agree with the Examiner that a
person of ordinary skill in the art “would provide a pump in the line to
assure that the flow and input pressure required to the FWE unit is available
for the smooth operation of the system.” (Id.).
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, prima facie, one of ordinary
skill in this art routinely following the combined teachings of Geisler and the
prior art as evidenced by Figures 4, 7 and 8a would have reasonably arrived
at the claimed reverse osmosis system. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“when a patent claims a structure already
known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element
for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a
predictable result”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-88 (Fed. Cir.
2006); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For
obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success.” (citations omitted)).
Appeal 2011-008560
Application 12/023,194

5
Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has
erred in rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

AFFIRMED
bar