Ex Parte Soland

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 2004

09284076 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.

Paper No. 30

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ARNE SOLAND
__________

Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before WALTZ, KRATZ, and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
(2003) from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 10 through
15 (final Office action mailed Oct. 17, 2001, paper 22), which
are all of the claims pending in the above-identified
application.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for
operating a process plant including a refining unit having at
least one reformer (claims 10-14) and to an apparatus for a
Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076

2
process plant having a refining unit with at least one reformer.
Further details of this appealed subject matter are recited in
representative claims 10, 11, and 15 reproduced below:
10. A method for operating a process plant
including a refining unit having at least one
reformer, for a heat treatment of gas, and a power
generator comprising:
generating power with a gas turbine;
supplying oxygen-containing exhaust gas from the
gas turbine to a combustion chamber of the reformer
through a channel, the channel consisting essentially
of a conduit without a heater or a fan; and
controlling operation of the gas turbine in order
to supply exhaust gas to the reformer combustion
chamber at an overpressure of approximately 0.5 bar
and at a temperature of approximately 350 to 450
degrees C.

11. A method for operating a process plant
including a refining unit having at least one
reformer, for a heat treatment of gas, and a power
generator comprising:
generating power with a gas turbine;
supplying exhaust gas from the gas turbine to a
combustion chamber of the reformer to serve as
combustion gas, the combustion gas consisting
essentially of the turbine exhaust gas; and
controlling operation of the gas turbine in order
to cause exhaust gas to advance from the gas turbine
to the combustion chamber at an exhaust gas
overpressure of approximately 0.5 bar and at an
exhaust gas temperature of approximately 350 to 450
degrees C, which exhaust gas overpressure corresponds
to the overpressure requirement of the combustion
chamber.

15. Apparatus for a process plant having a
refining unit with at east one reformer, for a heat
treatment of gas, and a power generator comprising:
a gas turbine connected to a power generator;
a combustion chamber of at least one reformer;
and
Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076

3
a channel, consisting essentially of a conduit
without a heater or a fan, connecting the combustion
chamber to an exhaust gas outlet of the gas turbine.

The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Muenger et al. 4,193,259 Mar. 18, 1980
(Muenger)

Javeri 2,146,632 Apr. 24, 1985
(published GB
application)

Claim 15 on appeal stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Javeri. (Examiner’s answer mailed Jul. 23,
2002, paper 26, page 3; final Office action, page 2.) In
addition, claims 10 through 14 on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Javeri in view of Muenger.
(Answer, page 3; final Office action, pages 2-3.)
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) but not
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claim 15
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim
in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass
Works v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56, 9 USPQ2d
1962, 1965 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076

4
Javeri teaches an ammonia or ammonia/urea plant and the
generation of power used in such plants. (Page 1, lines 5-8.)
Like the appellant, Javeri describes an apparatus comprising: a
gas turbine (Fig. 1, numeral 4) connected to an alternator
(i.e., a power generator) (Fig. 1, numeral 3); a combustion
chamber of at least one reformer (Fig. 1, reformer 1); and a
line (i.e., a conduit) (Fig. 1, numeral 5). Javeri makes no
mention of the use of a heater or a fan in line 5. In fact,
Javeri teaches that “the primary reformer furnace utili[zes] gas
turbine exhaust as the preheated combustion air” (page 1, lines
69-70) and that “the provision for a large combustion preheater
and associated forced draft fans is eliminated” (page 2, lines
49-50).
Given these teachings, we share the examiner’s view that
Javeri describes each and every limitation of appealed claim 15.
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
The appellant argues that Javeri has a disclaimer (page 1,
lines 100-103), which states: “[i]n the interests of clarity
many of the process lines are omitted since the chemical
production process is well known in the art.” (Appeal brief
filed Jun. 5, 2002, paper 25, page 5). Appellant further
argues: “A fan blowing exhaust gas into Javeri’s reformer 1 can
Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076

5
be considered as part of Javeri’s chemical production process
plant, and thus is subject to having been omitted in the
interests of clarity.” (Id.)
The appellant’s position is not well taken. As we
discussed above, Javeri makes no mention of the use of a heater
or a fan in line 5. In fact, Javeri appears to teach exactly
the opposite when he states that “the primary reformer furnace
utili[zes] gas turbine exhaust as the preheated combustion air”
(page 1, lines 69-70) and “the provision for a large combustion
preheater and associated forced draft fans is eliminated” (page
2, lines 49-50). Moreover, the appellant’s position is grounded
on conclusory statements that are not supported by objective
evidence.1
Under these circumstances, we hold that the examiner has
discharged the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation.
35 353535 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 10-14

1 It is well settled that mere lawyer’s arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual
evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137,
140 (CCPA 1978); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508-09, 173 USPQ
356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076

6
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 10-14

We need to address only the independent claims among claims
10 through 14, i.e., claims 10 and 11.
We have already addressed the teachings of Javeri above.
Muenger teaches the use of an exhaust gas overpressure “in the
range of 2 to 3.4 atm (30 to 50 psia).” (Col. 3, lines 28-29.)
The examiner argues that Muenger teaches exhaust gases from
a turbine at a pressure of between 2 to 3.4 atm (30-50 psia) and
that therefore “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use the
Javali [sic] apparatus at an overpressure of 0.5 bar in view of
the Muenger teaching in order to: 1) increase the heat transfer
from the combustor to steam 2 [sic]; [and] 2) eliminate the
stack exhaust fan and save its cost.” (Final Office action,
page 3.) According to the examiner, “it is clear beyond doubt
that exhaust overpressures of 0.5 bars were within the norms of
conventionally used pressures at the time of the claimed
invention according to the needs of the application considered.”
(Answer, page 4.)
The appellant, on the other hand, counters that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
(Appeal brief, pages 5-10.) Specifically, the appellant argues
that neither Javeri nor Muenger teaches “the overpressure” range
Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076

7
recited in the appealed claims. (Id. at page 6.) The appellant
further argues that there is no motivation or suggestion to
modify Javeri to control the operation of Javeri’s gas turbine
so as to supply exhaust gas to the reformer at an overpressure
of approximately 0.5 bar. (Appeal brief, page 9.)
As a preliminary matter, we note that the pressure units of
the appellant’s claimed invention and Muenger must be converted
to the same units. The appellant’s “overpressure of
approximately 0.5 bar” (claims 10 and 11) is expressed as gauge
pressure while Muenger’s “2 to 3.4 atm (30 to 50 psia)” (col. 3,
lines 28-29) indicates absolute pressure. Therefore, 1
atmosphere (or 1.013 bars) must be added to the appellant’s
recited pressure. It follows then that the appellant’s
converted pressure value would be 1.513 bars (or approximately
21.94 psia), as distinguished from Muenger’s 2 to 3.4 atm (30 to
50 psia; 2.026 to 3.444 bars).
Even if Javeri and Muenger can be combined as proposed by
the examiner, the examiner has offered no rationale on why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to operate at a
pressure outside the pressure range disclosed in Muenger. In
this regard, Muenger’s disclosed pressures do not overlap with
the appellant’s claimed range. Furthermore, while the examiner
argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076

8
skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use the
Javali [sic] apparatus at an overpressure of 0.5 bar in view of
the Muenger teaching in order to: 1) increase the heat transfer
from the combustor to steam 2 [sic]; [and] 2) eliminate the
stack exhaust fan and save its cost,” the examiner has not
identified any evidence that would substantiate this argument.
Accordingly, we hold that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness as to
appealed claims 10 through 14.
Summary
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed claim 15 as anticipated by Javeri.
We reverse, however, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
appealed claims 10 through 14 as unpatentable over Javeri in
view of Muenger.
The decision of the examiner is therefore affirmed in part.

Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076

9
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

Thomas A. Waltz )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Peter F. Kratz )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Romulo H. Delmendo )
Administrative Patent Judge )

RHD/kis
Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076

10
SUE Z SHAPER PC
1800 WEST LOOP SOUTH
SUITE 750
HOUSTON TX 77027