Ex Parte PrallerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201713531965 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017) 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. 13/531,965 06/25/2012 Andreas Praller P05010 6131 20411 7590 03/30/2017 The Linde Group 200 Somerset Corporate Blvd. Suite 7000 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 EXAMINER RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2017 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 ANDREAS PRALLER Appeal 2015-002982 Application 13/531,9651 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ decision rejecting claims 1—11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Appellant identifies Linde AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-002982 Application 13/531,965 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A method for the supply of a sink with liquid carbon dioxide with a desired temperature of more than 0° C and a desired pressure of more than 30 bar, characterized in that the liquid carbon dioxide is taken from a tank in which the liquid carbon dioxide is stored at a temperature below the desired temperature and a pressure below the desired pressure, that the pressure of the liquid carbon dioxide is increased and that subsequently the carbon dioxide is heated to the desired temperature in the immediate vicinity of the sink. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—8 and 10—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Winter (US 2005/0126188 Al, pub. June 16, 2005) and Fukushima et al. (US 4,367,187, iss. Jan. 4, 1983) (“Fukushima”). II. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Winter, Fukushima, and Viard (US 4,751,822, iss. June 21, 1988). FINDINGS OF FACT We rely upon and adopt the Examiner’s findings stated in the Final Office Action at pages 2—9 and the Answer at pages 2—7, except as stated otherwise, herein. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. ANAFYSIS Rejection I The Appellant first argues that the combination of Winter and Fukushima does not result in the claimed subject matter because Fukushima shows vaporization of the liquid carbon dioxide before it is introduced to the mold (i.e., the claimed “sink”), whereas claim 1 requires carbon dioxide to be in a liquid phase, upon its introduction to the “sink.” Appeal Br. 15—16 (citing Fukushima, col. 1,11. 32—38, 51—53). 2 Appeal 2015-002982 Application 13/531,965 As the Examiner explains, claim 1 does not require the introduction of liquid carbon dioxide to the sink. Answer 4. Indeed, claim 1 recites “the liquid carbon dioxide” several times, but then states — with the “liquid” modifier notably absent — “the carbon dioxide is heated to the desired temperature in the immediate vicinity of the sink.” (Emphasis added). Although the Appellant refers to a passage in the Specification to support the notion that carbon dioxide is introduced to the sink without any evaporation having occurred (Appeal Br. 16 (citing Spec. 119)), no such limitation appears in the claims. Reinforcing this construction, the Examiner indicates that such a limitation was articulated by the Appellant in a proposed, but non-entered, amendment. See Answer 4. Furthermore, as the Examiner explains, although Fukushima warns of potential negative effects of injecting liquid carbon dioxide into the molded item, Fukushima also provides the easy remedy of “introduc[ing] air into the blow molded article above the triple point pressure of carbon dioxide and then to introduce the liquefied gas such as carbon dioxide or [liquid nitrogen] into the pre-formed article.” Id. at 2 (quoting Fukushima, col. 1,11. 38-42) (emphasis added); see also Final Action 3, 6—8. Similarly, Fukushima describes “introducing a liquefied gas into [the sink] that is being blown with a blowing gas,” followed by “vaporizing said liquefied gas from the heat of the [sink].” See Answer 3 (quoting Fukushima, col. 2,11. 33—40). Further, the Examiner notes that, in any event, Winter also teaches the introduction of liquid carbon dioxide to a “sink.” See id. at 3. Applying the broadest reasonable construction, and without reading any features from the Specification into the claim, we agree with the Examiner that the recitation of “subsequently the carbon dioxide is heated” 3 Appeal 2015-002982 Application 13/531,965 — the sole occasion in claim 1 that omits the explicit indication that the carbon dioxide is in the “liquid” phase — is broad enough to cover carbon dioxide in a non-liquid form. Moreover, the Examiner (see id. at 2—3) identifies disclosures in at least Fukushima, teaching the introduction of liquid carbon dioxide to the sink, which would satisfy the claim language, even under the Appellant’s proposed construction. Accordingly, the Appellant’s first argument is not persuasive of error in the rejection of claim 1. As a second proposed basis for error in the rejection, the Appellant argues that, in Fukushima, the liquid carbon dioxide is heated in the mold (i.e., the claimed “sink”), rather than upstream of the mold. Appeal Br. 17— 18. Yet, as the Examiner explains, claim 1 does not mandate heating upstream of the sink, but simply recites “the carbon dioxide is heated to the desired temperature in the immediate vicinity of the sink” (emphasis added) — a feature that is satisfied by heating the carbon dioxide in the mold, as disclosed in Fukushima. See Answer 5. Reinforcing the interpretation that the claimed feature “in the immediate vicinity of the sink” may be met by heating in the sink, the Examiner indicates that such a limitation (i.e., that the heating must occur upstream of the sink) was presented by the Appellant in a proposed, but non-entered, amendment. See Answer 5. Moreover, in addition to Fukushima, the Examiner also notes that this claimed feature is taught by Winter, because Winter’s storage container 2 can be considered a sink, wherein liquid carbon dioxide is heated. See id. at 7. We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language “heating ... in the immediate vicinity of the sink,” such that this phrase does 4 Appeal 2015-002982 Application 13/531,965 not require the heating to occur upstream of the sink. There is nothing in the claim language itself that would mandate the Appellant’s proposed construction and the Appellant does not explain the basis for the proposed construction. Accordingly, at least Fukushima discloses the claimed feature. In view of the foregoing, the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error in the rejection of claim 1. With regard to dependent claims 2—8, 10, and 11, the Appellant relies upon the arguments presented for independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1—8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained. Rejection II Claim 9 depends from independent claim 1 and further recites that “that said sink is an injection moulding machine and said liquid carbon dioxide is at a temperature of about 15- C.” The Appellant argues that the reasons for error in the rejection of independent claim 1 apply to dependent claim 9, and that the additional Viard reference does not cure the deficiencies alleged in the references applied to claim 1. Appeal Br. 20-21. The Appellant does not argue that Viard fails to teach or suggest any further limitation added by claim 9. As explained above, the combination of Winter and Fukushima is sufficient to render claim 1 obvious, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. See Answer 6. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 5 Appeal 2015-002982 Application 13/531,965 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation