Ex Parte Reinhardt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 26, 2010

10887783 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALDON R. REINHARDT
____________

Appeal 2009-007791
Application 10/887,783
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: May 26, 2010
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-007791
Application 10/887,783

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Aldon R. Reinhardt (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2006)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2006).

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to an energy transfer system that
generates steam. Spec. 1, para. [0002].
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. An energy system comprising:
a container having an insulated cavity;
a fluid located in the insulated cavity of the container;
a combustion chamber immersed in the fluid located in the
insulated cavity of the container, the combustion chamber having a
first end and a second end;
a fuel supply system coupled to a fuel input port at the first end
of the combustion chamber;
a blower coupled to an air input port at the first end of the
combustion chamber;
a water supply system coupled to a water input port at the first
end of the combustion chamber, wherein the water supply system
introduces water into the combustion chamber via the water input
port;
a spark generator located at the first end of the combustion
chamber;
Appeal 2009-007791
Application 10/887,783

3
one or more tube structures coupled to the second end of the
combustion chamber, wherein the one or more tube structures are
located in the insulated cavity of the container;
an exhaust port coupled to the one or more tube structures and
extending outside of the container; and
a pump configured to circulate the fluid from the container to a
location external to the container, and back to the container, wherein a
path of the fluid is separate from a path of the water in the energy
system.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Noack US 1,935,659 Nov. 21, 1933
Wyatt US 4,418,651 Dec. 6, 1983
Ripka US 4,993,402 Feb. 19, 1991
Kataoka (translation) JP 10-054306 A Feb. 24, 1998

The following rejections are before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ripka, Noack, and Kataoka.
The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ripka, Noack, Kataoka, and Wyatt.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wyatt and Ripka.

THE ISSUES
The Examiner found that Ripka discloses all the features of claim 1
with the exception of “a water supply adjacent to the fuel and air inlets for
Appeal 2009-007791
Application 10/887,783

4
injecting water into the combustion chamber and a water pump to circulate
the fluid from and back to the container.” Ans. 3. The Examiner further
found that Kataoka discloses a separate water injector for injecting water
into a combustion chamber. Id. The Examiner then concluded that it would
have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the
water injector of Kataoka to the combustion chamber of Ripka in order to
“inject water [in]to the combustion chamber to form steam” so as to
“promote combustion and increase heat transfer thermal efficiency.” Ans. 4
and 7.1
Appellant argues that because Ripka specifically discloses that (1)
water cannot pass between the burner cavity 32 and the water tank 33 and
(2) condensation in the tank flue 45 is an undesirable phenomenon, Ripka
teaches away from using a water supply system that introduces water into a
combustion chamber. Br. 11. In response, the Examiner takes the position
that Appellant has misinterpreted the disclosure of Ripka. Specifically, the
Examiner states that, “what Ripka refers to is [that] the fluid within the
insulated cavity 33 of the container 37 cannot pass from the tank [33] into
the burner cavity [32].” Ans. 6.
Accordingly, the first issue presented for our consideration in the
instant appeal is whether the disclosure of Ripka teaches away from using a
water supply system that introduces water into the combustion chamber of
Ripka.

1 The Examiner further found that Noack shows the claimed water pump and
radiator and that it would have been obvious to further modify Ripka’s
system to include a closed heat exchanger loop with water pump and
radiator as taught by Noack in order to save energy. Ans. 3-4. Appellant
has not contested these findings.
Appeal 2009-007791
Application 10/887,783

5
Appellant further argues that Wyatt fails to disclose an energy system
having a fluid path “separate” from a water path, as required by independent
claim 1. Br. 15. The Examiner found that Wyatt discloses a water supply
system 20, 28 coupled to a water input port (at downstream 20) and a fluid
(downstream 20) located in the insulated cavity (inside 12). Ans. 5. More
specifically, the Examiner found that because the term “‘separate’ means
separate locations” and “[t]he water path (at 14) is separated from the fluid
path (at fresh feed water 20),” Wyatt discloses a fluid path “separate” from a
water path. Ans. 10.
As such, the second issue presented for our consideration in the
instant appeal is whether Wyatt discloses an energy system having a fluid
path “separate” from a water path, as required by independent claim 1.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

OPINION
Issue (1)
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-13 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) together as a group. Br. 10. Therefore, in accordance with
37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009), we have selected claim 1 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal, with claims 3, 5-13 and 15
standing or falling with claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner that in Ripka the water from tank 33
cannot pass into burner cavity 32. Ripka, col. 4, ll. 27-29. See also Ans. 6.
Further, it is our finding that condensation of the combustion gases is an
Appeal 2009-007791
Application 10/887,783

6
undesirable phenomenon in the tank flue 45. Ripka, col. 4, ll. 40-47. Hence,
Ripka is not concerned with water in the burner cavity 32, as Appellant
appears to argue, but rather with water outside the burner cavity 32, i.e.,
water tank 33 and tank flue 45. Actually, because Ripka specifically
discloses that any condensation formed in the burner cavity 32 evaporates
upon ignition of burner 31, Ripka does not appear to be concerned with
condensation in the burner cavity 32. See Ripka, col. 4, ll. 47-49. Hence,
we do not find any disclosure in Ripka that would have a discouraged a
person of ordinary skill in the art from providing the water injector of
Kataoka to the combustion chamber of Ripka. See In re Haruna, 249 F.3d
1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 5-13 and 15
standing or falling with claim 1, over the combined teachings of Ripka,
Noack, and Kataoka is sustained.
With respect to claim 14, Appellant presents essentially identical
arguments as presented for claim 1. App. Br. 13. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 14 over the combined teachings of Ripka, Noack, Kataoka, and
Wyatt is likewise sustained.

Issue (2)
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In
this case, Appellant’s Specification does not expressly define the term
“separate” or otherwise indicate that this term is used in a manner other than
Appeal 2009-007791
Application 10/887,783

7
its ordinary and customary meaning. We find that an ordinary and
customary meaning of the term “separate” is “1 a: set or kept apart.”
MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th Ed. 1997).
Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification clearly describes a “fluid path” 2 that
is distinct from a “water path.” 3 As such, we construe the words “a path of
the fluid is separate from a path of the water,” as called for in claim 1, to
mean that the path of fluid is set or kept apart from the path of water.
In Wyatt, fresh feed water from line 20 mixes with recycled water
from line 28 to form a mixture of steam and hot non-condensibles (nitrogen
and carbon dioxide) in vapor generator 12. The mixture of steam and hot
non-condensibles travels through generator output line 21 from vapor
generator 12 to heat exchanger 13 where it is transformed into a mixture of
warm liquid water and non-condensibles. Finally, in the separator 14, the
water separates from the non-condensibles and is recycled through line 28 to
line 20 to mix once more with fresh feed water. Wyatt, col. 4, l. 44 through
col. 5, l. 6 and fig. 1. Hence, water travels in a complete loop throughout the
entire system of Wyatt transforming from water into a mixture of steam and
non-condensibles and back into water. Although water is separated from the
mixture of water and non-condensibles by the separator 14, nonetheless, this
same water is then mixed with fresh feed water from line 20 to begin the

2 The Specification describes a “fluid path” from inner container 220
through hot water line 116, water pump 106, radiator element 107, hot water
line 117 and back into inner container 220. Spec. 16, paras. [0043]-[0044].
3 The Specification describes a “water path” from a water supply line
115 to a water inlet valve 215, to the combustion chamber 201 where the
water is transformed into steam, and the steam is transferred further through
tubes 204-207, steam line 118, and radiator/blower 108. Spec. 13-14, paras.
[0033], [0034], and [0036] and fig. 2.
Appeal 2009-007791
Application 10/887,783

8
cycle anew. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the path of fluid and
the path of water in Wyatt cannot be set apart because the “water” and the
“fluid” are the same element. See Br. 15.
In conclusion, Wyatt does not disclose an energy system having a
fluid path “separate” from a water path, as required by independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-15, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wyatt and Ripka, cannot be
sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an
independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim
dependent therefrom is nonobvious).

CONCLUSION
1. Ripka does not teach away from providing the water injector of
Kataoka to the combustion chamber of Ripka.
2. Wyatt does not disclose an energy system having a fluid path
“separate” from a water path, as required by independent claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed as to claims 1, 3, and 5-15 and
reversed as to claims 2 and 4.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2009-007791
Application 10/887,783

9
mls

ALDON R. REINHARDT
P.O. BOX 2494
LIVERMORE, CA 94550