Ex parte Ruottu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 1999

08115791 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 1999)

Application for patent filed September 3, 1993. 1
According to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application No. 07/844,915, filed March 5, 1992; which is a
continuation of Application No. 07/536,931, filed June 12,
1990; which is a continuation of Application No. 06/640,526,
filed August 14, 1984; which is a continuation of Application
No. 06/371,796, filed April 26, 1982; all which have been
abandoned.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 74
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte SEPPO RUOTTU
________________
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,7911
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before WINTERS, KIMLIN and OWENS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-2-
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 12-
31. Claim 7, the other claim remaining in the present
application, stands withdrawn from consideration. Claim 12 is
illustrative:
12. A method of gasifying carbonaceous material in a
single fluidized bed reactor having: a lower part defining an
oxidation zone, and including a distribution plate; and an
upper part defining a reducing zone and including a gas
discharge opening; said method comprising the steps of
substantially continuously:
(a) introducing oxygen containing gas into the lower part
of the reactor through the distribution plate;
(b) introducing carbonaceous material to be gasified into
the reducing zone in the upper part of the reactor at a point
substantially free of oxygen, so that the carbonaceous
material is pyrolyzed to produce gases which flow through the
gas discharge opening;
(c) separating unreacted carbonaceous material from the
gas flowing through the gas discharge opening;
(d) returning the separated unreacted carbonaceous
material from step (c) to the oxidation zone below the point
of introduction of the carbonaceous material in step (b) so
that the unreacted carbonaceous material reacts with oxygen
introduced in step (a) to generate heat, CO and H O and to2 2
maintain a temperature of between 970-1200 degrees C in the
oxidizing zone;
(e) circulating a sufficient volume of inert particulate
material, entrained in gas within the reactor so as to carry
sufficient heat from the oxidizing zone into the reducing zone
to maintain the temperature in the reducing zone greater than
or equal to 900 degrees C to provide a high enough temperature
to effect the pyrolyzation of step (b), generated CO and H O2 2
and other gases passing upwardly with the circulating
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-3-
particles into the reducing zone from the oxidizing zone to
heat the reducing zone; and
(f) separating inert particles which pass out of the gas
discharge opening with the gas from the gas, and returning the
separated inert particles to the oxidizing zone.
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-4-
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Anwer et al. (Anwer) 4,017,272 Apr. 12, 1977
Patel et al. (Patel) 4,057,402 Nov. 8, 1977
Nack et al. (Nack) 4,154,581 May 15, 1979
Patel et al. (Patel '758) 4,315,758 Feb. 16, 1982
Reh et al. (Reh) 4,347,064 Aug. 31, 1982
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method of
gasifying carbonaceous material in a single fluidized bed
reactor. The method entails, inter alia, returning separated
unreacted carbonaceous material to an oxidation zone that is
below the point of introduction of the carbonaceous feed
material, and recycling separated inert particles to the
oxidation zone of the reactor in order to carry sufficient
heat from the oxidation zone into the reduction zone where the
carbonaceous material is pyrolyzed into gaseous material.
Appealed claims 12-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first and second paragraphs. The appealed claims also
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Patel in view of Anwer, Reh, Nack and Patel '758.
We consider first the rejection of the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs.
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-5-
According to the examiner, claims 12 and 21 do not find
descriptive support in the original specification since they
encompass a process wherein the carbonaceous material and
inert particles are separately returned to the reactor. We
will not sustain this rejection because all that is required
by § 112, first paragraph, is that the claimed subject matter
be described in the original specification, and appellant's
specification adequately describes the claimed return of the
separated unreacted carbonaceous material and the separated
inert particles. The claims do not require that the
carbonaceous and inert materials are separately returned.
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 24 and
26 under § 112, second paragraph. We agree with the examiner
that claim 24 is indefinite with respect to whether the
carbonaceous material or inert material has the recited flow
rate of 7.8 6g/second. While appellant states at page 12 of
the principal brief that claim 24 has a typographical error
"in referencing step (c) rather than step (f)," the examiner
correctly points out that claim 21, upon which claim 24
depends, does not include a step (f).
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-6-
Regarding claim 26, we concur with the examiner that the
language "the total material" lacks proper antecedent basis.
Likewise, the claim 26 language of step (b) "the recirculated
particles" lacks antecedent basis. Also, we agree with the
examiner that the language of step (a), "circulating inert
granular material of the fluidized bed in such a way that a
portion of the total material is in pneumatic movement" is
indefinite since it is not clear what "portion" of the total
material is not in pneumatic movement. For example, does "the
total material" include a combination of inert material and
carbonaceous material or just inert material. While appellant
contends at page 2 of the Reply Brief that "[t]here is no
commonly accepted interpretation of the language 'a portion'
that specifically and unequivocally excludes 100%," we note
that Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 896 (G & C Merriam
Co. 1976) defines "portion" as "an often limited part set off
or abstracted from a whole." Moreover, we are convinced that
one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret "a
portion of the total material" as something less than 100% of
the total material.
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-7-
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 24 and 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Upon careful consideration of
the opposing arguments presented on appeal, we find ourselves
in agreement with appellant that the applied prior art fails
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection.
Patel, the primary reference, discloses a gasification
process that does not include three of the presently claimed
features. In particular, Patel fails to disclose (1)
returning separated carbonaceous material to the oxidation
zone below the point of introduction of the feed carbonaceous
material, (2) the presence of inert material in the fluidized
bed reactor, and (3) recycling the separated inert material to
the oxidation zone of the reactor. Although Patel discloses a
recycle of carbonaceous fines in line 84, the examiner is
mistaken in stating that the recycled fines are introduced
into the oxidation zone of the reactor. Patel discloses that
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-8-
the fines are directed to section 62 below the venturi 60
(column 7, lines 7-10).
Although the secondary references applied by the examiner
individually provide separate disclosures of the three claimed
features lacking in Patel, we do not find that the processes
of Anwer, Reh, Nack and Patel '758 are sufficiently like the
process of Patel that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to modify Patel so that (1) the unreacted
carbonaceous material is returned to the oxidation zone below
the point of introduction of the feed carbonaceous material,
(2) inert material is circulated and (3) separated inert
material is returned to the oxidation zone. For instance,
whereas Nack recycles inert material, there is no disclosure
of returning unreacted carbonaceous material. Also, while Reh
recycles carbonaceous material, the reference does not teach
the claimed step of returning the unreacted carbonaceous
material to the oxidation zone below the point of introduction
of the feed carbonaceous material. Furthermore, as argued by
appellant, Reh discloses a two reactor system, not the claimed
single fluidized bed reactor. While Anwer discloses the
recycle of carbonaceous material through line 40, it is clear
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-9-
from reference Figure 1 that the recycle is introduced at a
point above, not below, the point of introduction of the feed
carbonaceous material. Also, unlike the process of Patel,
Anwer discloses entry of oxygen both above and below the point
of introduction of the carbonaceous material. Patel '758, the
final secondary reference, fails to teach the employment of
circulating inert material in the gasification method.
Accordingly, it is our view that impermissible hindsight
is necessary to pick and choose from among the disclosures of
the secondary references in order to modify the gasification
process of Patel so that it meets the requirements of the
claimed gasification method.
We recognize that appellant took an appeal in the great
grandparent application of the present application (U.S.
Application No. 06/640,526, filed August 14, 1984). In a
decision dated November 29, 1989 (Appeal No. 88-0003), the
Board affirmed the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims
over the same prior art presently applied, with the exception
of Patel '758. However, the present claims on appeal are
substantially different than the appealed claims in the prior
appeal, e.g., the appealed claims in the great grandparent
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-10-
application did not require that the separated unreacted
carbonaceous material be returned to the oxidation zone below
the point of introduction of the carbonaceous material.
Consequently, the instant appeal presents different issues
than those before the prior merits panel.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we will sustain
the examiner's § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 24
and 26-31. We will not sustain the examiner's § 112, first
and second paragraph, rejections of claims 12-23 and 25 or the
rejection of all the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the examiner's decision rejecting the appealed
claims is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
EDWARD C. KIMLIN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-11-
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
clm
Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
-12-
Nixon & Vanderhye
1100 North Glebe Road, 8th Floor
Arlington, VA 22201