Ex Parte RichardsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201612413788 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/413,788 0313012009 20411 7590 09/29/2016 The Linde Group 200 Somerset Corporate Blvd. Suite 7000 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andrew P. RICHARDSON 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. P09A009 9814 EXAMINER KRINKER, Y ANA B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1747 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2016 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 ANDREW P. RICHARDSON Appeal2015-003764 Application 12/413,788 Technology Center 1700 Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, and 21. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellant's claimed invention is directed to an end-port regenerative furnace. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. An end-port regenerative furnace, comprising: a housing; a combustion chamber disposed within the housing; a charging end associated with the combustion chamber; a first port and a second port disposed at the charging end of the housing for communication with the combustion chamber; Appeal2015-003764 Application 12/413,788 a discharging end associated with the combustion chamber and spaced apart from the charging end; a first regenerator disposed at a first side of the housing at the charging end and in communication with the combustion chamber through the first port, the first regenerator cyclically operable between a firing mode wherein fuel is injected proximate preheated combustion air passing through the first port into the combustion chamber, and an exhaust mode wherein products of combustion are exhausted from the combustion chamber through the first port; a first oxy-fuel burner assembly disposed in a first side wall at the first side of the housing between the charging and discharging ends and closer to the discharging end, the first oxy-fuel burner assembly cyclically operable between a fuel rich mode and a fuel lean mode concurrent with the cyclical operation of the first regenerator; a second regenerator disposed at a second side of the housing at the charging end and in communication with the combustion chamber through the second port, the second regenerator cyclically operable between the firing mode wherein fuel is injected proximate preheated combustion air passing through the second port into the combustion chamber, and the exhaust mode wherein products of combustion are exhausted from the combustion chamber through the second port; and a second oxy-fuel burner assembly disposed in a second side wall at the second side of the housing opposite to the first side between the charging and discharging ends and closer to the discharging end, the second oxy-fuel burner assembly cyclically operable between a fuel rich mode and a fuel lean mode concurrent with the cyclical operation of the second regenerator; wherein the first regenerator and the first oxy-fuel burner assembly are constructed and arranged to coact concurrently with the second regenerator and second oxy-fuel burner assembly for cyclical operation such that the first regenerator is operable in the firing mode concurrently with the first oxy-fuel burner assembly operable in a fuel rich mode for a first time interval of from 10 to 3 0 minutes to provide fuel rich combustion and a fuel rich combustion product flow within the combustion chamber, and the second oxy-fuel burner assembly is operable in a fuel lean mode concurrently with the exhaust mode of the second regenerator for the first time interval to provide additional oxygen to react with the fuel rich combustion product flow and form an exhaust flow from the combustion chamber, the second regenerator operable in the firing mode concurrently with the second oxy-fuel burner assembly operable in the fuel rich mode for 2 Appeal2015-003764 Application 12/413,788 a second time interval of from 10 to 30 minutes after said first time interval to reverse direction of the fuel rich combustion product flow and the exhaust flow within the combustion chamber for the cyclical operation between the first and second regenerators. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims: J ouvaud et al. us 5, 158,590 Oct. 27, 1992 (" J ouvaud") Simpson et al. US 2001/0039813 Al Nov. 15, 2001 (''Simpson") Joshi et al. US 6,398,547 Bl June 4, 2002 ("Joshi") The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 1. Claims 1, 5-8, 11, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jouvaud in view of Joshi. 2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jouvaud in view of Joshi and Simpson. After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness adduced by the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant's arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and in the Examiner's Answer. We offer the following for emphasis. 3 Appeal2015-003764 Application 12/413,788 Concerning the Examiner's first stated rejection, Appellant argues the rejected claims together as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we focus in deciding this appeal as to Rejection 1. The Examiner has determined that Jouvaud teaches or suggests, inter alia, an end-port regenerative furnace that includes a housing, a combustion chamber, a charging end, a discharging end, first and second ports, first and second regenerators capable of alternating (cycling) sequentially with each other between a firing mode and an exhaust mode, and first and second oxy- fuel burner assemblies disposed in the housing sidewall and arranged as required by representative claim 1 (Final Act. 2-3; Jouvaud, col. 3, 1. 67- col. 4, 1. 9, col. 4, 11. 55---60; Fig,. 1 ). Appellant argues that "Jouvaud does not disclose stoichiometric variation or changes of elements as called for in independent claim 1" (Br. 9). However, as recognized by Appellant, the Examiner relies on Joshi, not Jouvaud, for teaching the use of burners that are capable of cycling between fuel rich and fuel lean modes of operation (the argued stoichiometric variation feature) (Final Act. 3; Joshi, col. 4, 11. 6-11, col. 5, 11. 41-52). Moreover, the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ burners having such a stoichiometric variation feature as taught by Joshi in Jouvaud so as to obtain the advantages taught or suggested by Joshi with respect to providing for such stoichiometric variable burners, such as savings on oxygen and/or fuel consumption, lower refractory temperatures, lowered NOx emissions, etc. (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3; Joshi, col. 3, 11. 40--44). 4 Appeal2015-003764 Application 12/413,788 Appellant argues that the Examiner's proposed combination is in error; however, Appellant does not address, much less explain, why the Examiner's expressed rationale for the proposed modification of Jouvaud based on the teachings of Joshi is invalid. Consequently, Appellant's argument is conclusory. Therefore, Appellant fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection based on an asserted error in the incentive for the proposed modification of Jouvaud advanced by the Examiner (Ans. 4). In addition, Appellant argues that even if the applied references were combined, "the resulting construction would still not have the coaction and cyclical operation of regenerators and oxy-fuel burners concurrently cycling to control the fuel rich combustion product flow and the exhaust flow as called for in independent claim 1" (Br. 10). However, as explained by the Examiner, Jouvaud teaches first and second cyclically operable regenerators with a firing mode and an exhaust mode for each regenerator, which can be alternated with each other (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3; Jouvaud, col. 3, 1. 67- col. 4, 1. 9, col. 4, 11. 55-60; Fig. 1 ). Moreover, Joshi teaches oxy-fuel burners that can be cycled between a fuel- rich mode and a fuel lean mode of operation (Final Act. 3; Joshi, col. 4, 11. 6-11; col. 5, 11. 41-52). Based on the combination of the references, the Examiner has determined that the modified Jouvaud would have a combination of the features of the applied references that would result in a furnace construction that would be capable of the argued coaction function (Ans. 3--4). Appellant does not articulate why the modified construction of Jouvaud that includes the burners of Joshi would not be capable of the argued operability/functionality. In this regard, we observe that Appellant 5 Appeal2015-003764 Application 12/413,788 discloses that the argued coaction feature is an "in operation" feature whereas claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus (Spec. i-fi-f 12-15). Appellant does not articulate what structural feature required by claim 1 would be missing from the Examiner's proposed combination of references. As such, Appellant's arguments fail to indicate reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative claim 1. It follows that we shall affirm the Examiner's first stated rejection. Concerning the Examiner's separate rejection of dependent claim 3, Appellant does not base their argument on the features of dependent claim 3; rather, Appellant limits the arguments to those addressed above with respect to limitations found in claim 1 which arguments were found to lack merit. Accordingly, we shall affirm the Examiner's separate obviousness rejection of claim 3. CONCLUSION The Examiner's decision to reject the appealed claims is affirmed. 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