Ex Parte Poulston et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 201914356498 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/356,498 05/06/2014 466 7590 YOUNG & THOMPSON 209 Madison Street Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 05/30/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephen Poulston 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. 6520-1003 1037 EXAMINER DA VIS, SHENG HAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1732 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2019 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): DocketingDept@young-thompson.com yandtpair@firs ttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN POULSTON, ANDREW WILLIAM JOHN SMITH, STEPHEN CHARLES BENNETT, and ELIZABETH ROWSELL Appeal2018-005967 Application 14/356,498 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, JOHNSON MATTHEY PUBLIC LIMITED COMP ANY. According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Anglo Platinum Marketing Limited. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-005967 Application 14/356,498 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to a gas filter suitable for air purification for breathing apparatus such as a protective gas mask or respirator or for air purification equipment. Spec. 1 :2-5; 2: 18-26. In particular, the invention seeks to employ alternative catalyst material for oxidation of carbon monoxide. Id. at 2:5-7. Claim 1, reproduced below with formatting added for readability and emphases added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for the treatment of air, wherein air having a first concentration of carbon monoxide enters the apparatus and breathable air having a second concentration of carbon monoxide exits the apparatus, said first concentration being higher than said second concentration, the apparatus comprising a gas treatment device, compnsmg: i) a catalyst for the oxidation of carbon monoxide ii) comprising palladium and iron oxide and a source of a volatile nitrogen-containing compound, the volatile nitrogen-containing compound being selected to remove one or more toxins from the air, the catalyst being resistant to poisoning by any nitrogen-containing compound that comes into contact with the catalyst in the gas treatment device. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated October 24, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed April 24, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), and the Examiner's Answer dated July 13, 2017 ("Ans."). 2 Appeal2018-005967 Application 14/356,498 Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Kanno us 4,003,979 Jan. 18, 1977 Sinha us 4,185,082 Jan.22, 1980 Kolts us 4,920,088 Apr. 24, 1990 Golunski et al. us 5,877,377 Mar. 2, 1999 ("Golunski") Brown us 6,093,670 July 25, 2000 Smith et al. US 6,344,071 B 1 Feb. 5,2002 ("Smith") Hayashi et al. JP 57140648 Aug.31, 1982 ("Hayashi") Nam et al. KR 100270084 Oct. 16, 2000 ("Nam") REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: Rejection 1. Claims 1, 2, 8-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sinha in view of Smith and Kanno. Final Act. 4. Rejection 2. Claims 3, 4, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sinha in view of Smith and Kanno and further in view of Golunski. Id. at 10. Rejection 3. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sinha in view of Smith and Kanno and further in view of Brown. Id. at 11. Rejection 4. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sinha in view of Smith and Kanno and further in view of Kolts and Hayashi. Id. at 12. 3 Appeal2018-005967 Application 14/356,498 Rejection 5. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sinha in view of Smith and Kanno and further in view of Nam. Id. at 13. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant's arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Appellant does not present any substantively distinct arguments for the Examiner's second through fifth rejections or for claims other than claim 1. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 26-32. We, therefore, limit our discussion to the rejection of claim 1. All other claims stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sinha in view of Smith and Kanno. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Sinha teaches a catalyst that is an iron (Fe) oxide and a noble metal, such as palladium (Pd). Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Sinha does not teach use of an amine or ammonia. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that Smith teaches a filter impregnated with an amine. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to add an amine group 4 Appeal2018-005967 Application 14/356,498 for use with Sinha's teachings because amines are known to improve the properties of other compounds used on the active carbon filter for filtering air. Id. The Examiner also finds that Sinha does not teach a breathable air filter. The Examiner finds, however, that Kanno teaches using a noble metal catalyst on an activated carbon support to oxidize carbon monoxide and determines that it would have been obvious to employ the processes of Sinha and Smith to remove carbon monoxide in breathable air as taught by Kanno because carbon monoxide is a known contaminant. Id. at 6. Appellant argues that the cited art does not teach all elements of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant argues that Sinha does not unambiguously disclose a palladium and iron oxide catalyst. Id. at 10-11. The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Sinha does teach such a catalyst. Final Act. 5. In particular, Sinha teaches that "[ c ]onventional catalyst compositions ... useful in the present invention include the base metals Cu, Cr, Ni, Fe, and Mn, usually as the oxide; and the noble metals Au, Ag, Pt, Pd, and Rh, as the element or an ill-defined oxide." Sinha 2:61---66. Sinha is, therefore, best understood as teaching a catalyst that includes at least one of Cu, Cr, Ni, Fe, and Mn (usually as an oxide) as well as at least one of Au, Ag, Pt, Pd, and Rh. Given the limited possibilities taught by Sinha, a person of skill in the art would have understood Sinha as teaching an iron (Fe) oxide and palladium (Pd) catalyst. See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) ("all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered"). Appellant also argues that Smith is interested in removing ammonia and therefore has no relevance to the Sinha catalyst system. Appeal Br. 11- 5 Appeal2018-005967 Application 14/356,498 14. The Examiner, however, explains that Kanno teaches removal of air contaminants and catalytic conversion of carbon monoxide in filtration materials. Ans. 4. A person skilled in the art would have understood that Kanno system could reasonably be employed with the Sinha catalyst to convert carbon monoxide and Smith's amine impregnated material to remove harmful organic material. Id. at 4. Appellant's argument does not identify error in the Examiner's reasoned basis for combining the references' teachings to reach the kind of useful, multi-purpose filter taught by Kanno. Rather, Appellant's argument appears to conflate the desire to remove ammonia from the air ( a goal of Smith) with the benefits of impregnating filter material with ammonia ( with such impregnation being taught by Smith). See, e.g., Smith 4:25-28 ("the presence of the amine on one kind of filter media particles boosts the performance of impregnants on the other kind of filter media particles"); 6:31-54 (explaining various benefits of impregnating filter with ammonia or ammonium salts). Appellant also argues that the particular combination of a palladium and iron catalyst with a nitrogen-containing compound allows removal of carbon monoxide from airstreams after prolonged storage. Appeal Br. 18. This argument does not identify error in the Examiner's stated rationale to combine the cited references' teachings. KSR Int'!, Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (holding that "objective reach of the claim" controls the obviousness analysis rather than "the avowed purpose of the patentee"). Appellant also argues that Kanno chooses "an entirely different approach" to treating carbon monoxide as compared to the present invention. Appeal Br. 17-22. This argument again does not squarely address the Examiner's stated rationale for combining the references' teachings. The 6 Appeal2018-005967 Application 14/356,498 argument also attempts to distinguish Kanno based on Kanno removing an amine (in the gas to be purified) prior to contacting the catalyst. Id. at 21- 22. Claim 1, however, does not require that the recited catalyst and recited source be integral. Instead, claim 1 also encompasses an apparatus that provides gas treatments in steps just as, according to Appellant, Kanno does. Because Appellant's arguments do not identify Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner's rejections. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-2 0. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation