Ex Parte Raichle et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2013

12138823 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ANDREAS RAICHLE, HOLGER BORCHERT,
KLAUS JOACHIM MULLER-ENGEL, HAGEN WILMER,
CORNELIA DOBNER, and ULRICH CREMER
__________

Appeal 2011-007692
Application 12/138,823
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
LORA M. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The Real Party in Interest is BASF SE (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-007692
Application 12/138,823

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as
follows:
1. A process for charging a reactor with a fixed catalyst bed which
comprises at least one shaped catalyst body K whose geometric shape is that
of a ring with the external diameter E, the internal diameter I and the height
H where E > H, which process comprises:
contacting a screen with shaped catalyst bodies K and fragments
thereof, wherein at least part of said fragments pass through the screen,
thereby leaving a screen residue on the screen comprising the shaped
catalyst bodies K, and
charging the fixed catalyst bed with the screen residue,
wherein the screen has screen orifices whose continuous outline has in
each case at least two straight-line sections which are opposite one another
at a distance C over at least one length L like two parallel sides of a
rectangle with the side lengths L and C,
with the proviso that each line which runs through an outline point P
lying on the outline of a screen orifice and parallel to the theoretical
rectangle side with the side length C does not have any further point lying on
the outline whose distance from the outline point P is larger than the side
length C, wherein, in the process for screening, the relations I,
L>E>H>C>(E-I)/2 (I),
are satisfied.

Claim 21 is also independent, and also requires the relations as
defined by (I) above.
The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
I. Claims 1-10, 13, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Tazawa2 (Ans. 3).

2 Tazawa et al., US 2005/0161373 A1, published Jul. 28, 2005.
Appeal 2011-007692
Application 12/138,823

3
II. Claims 2-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Tazawa, Craig,3 and
Borton4 (Ans. 5).
III. Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Tazawa, Craig, and
Borton as further combined with the admitted state of the art (Ans.
7).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 21 as being
anticipated by Tazawa. As to the relationship of the size of the orifices in
the screen to the dimensions of the shaped catalyst body as defined by (I) in
claims 1 and 21, the Examiner relies on paragraphs 36-45 of Tazawa (Ans.
5).
Appellants argue that Tazawa does not teach or suggest the relation as
defined by (I) (App. Br. 7). Specifically, Appellants assert that Tazawa
teaches that L > C, and also discloses the relationship of the screen to the
catalyst body of A>C>B, wherein A is the outer diameter of the catalyst
body (E of the claim), and B is the length in the axial direction of the
catalyst body (H of the claims) (Reply Br. 1-2). Thus, as taught by Tazawa,
E>C>H.
Appellants then assert that in Example I of Tazawa, LE>H>C>(E-I)/2. Thus, Tazawa preferred relationship of E>C>H
(see Tazawa, Abstract, p. 1, ¶ 14, p. 3, ¶ 37) does not meet that, as Tazawa
prefers C>H. Similarly, Examples I and II of Tazawa do not meet the
claimed relation for the reasons set forth by Appellants in the Reply Brief.
In the response to argument, the Examiner relies on paragraph 40 of
Tazawa, which teaches a screen width of E>C>0.5H (Ans. 9-10). Paragraph
40 of Tazawa, however, is drawn to a columnar or cylindrical shaped
catalyst, and not a ring with the external diameter E and an internal diameter
I. Thus, paragraph 40 of Tazawa cannot be used as the basis of an
anticipation rejection.
The Examiner has thus not established that Tazawa teaches each and
every limitation of independent claims 1 and 21, see Karsten Mfg. Corp. v.
Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that in
order to anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention
must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim), and
we reverse the anticipation rejection.
As to the obviousness rejection, the Examiner does not rely on Borton
or Craig to make up the above deficiencies of Tazawa. We thus reverse
those rejections as well.

REVERSED
dm