Ex Parte Praller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13531965 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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