Ex Parte Storbacka et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 201611577442 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111577,442 04/18/2007 23117 7590 08/24/2016 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jan Storbacka 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. JHN-30-586 4297 EXAMINER BRYANT, DAVID P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAN STORBACKA and PETRI TIKKA Appeal2014-002756 Application 11/577 ,442 1 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LEE L. STEPINA, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jan Storbacka and Petri Tikka (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16, 17, 23-28, and 32-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Reihl (US 3,338,219, iss. Aug. 29, 1967), and Saviharju (US 2002/0162491 Al, pub. Nov. 7, 2002). 2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Andritz Oy. Appeal Br. 3 (filed August 22, 2013). 2 Although the Final Office Action indicates claims 16, 17, 23-28, and 32- 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Reihl, Appeal2014-002756 Application 11/577,442 We REVERSE. SUMMARY OF DECISION INVENTION Appellants' invention "relates to an arrangement and a method for enlarging a boiler, especially a chemical recovery boiler of a pulp mill, and specifically a furnace of the boiler, and thus for optimizing and simplifying the increase of the capacity thereof." Spec. 1: 1-3. Claims 16 and 26 are independent claims. Claim 16, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 16. A method for expanding a chemical recovery boiler having a front wall, a rear wall and a pair of side walls between the front and rear walls, the method comprises: operating the chemical recovery boiler in a first capacity range wherein the front wall, the rear wall and the pair of side\~1alls define a combustion zone and the pair of side\~1alls is separated by a first distance and the front wall and the rear wall are separated by a third distance, wherein at least one of the front wall and rear wall includes a secondary air nozzle; positioning at least one sidewall such that the pair of sidewalls is separated by a second distance greater than the first distance; attaching the at least one sidewall to the front wall and the rear wall, wherein the pair of sidewalls is separated by a second distance greater than the first distance and the combustion zone has an increased volume due to the greater distance between the pair of sidewalls and wherein the front wall and the rear wall and Saviharju, the Examiner's analysis also includes claims 34 and 35. Final Act. 3. Accordingly, we understand the Examiner's heading, which identifies 32-33 instead of 32-35, to be a typographical error. See id. at 1. 2 Appeal2014-002756 Application 11/577,442 remains separated by the third distance after attaching the at least one sidewall; in cooperation with attaching the at least one sidewall to the front wall and the rear wall, increasing a width of the front wall and the rear wall such that the third distance between the front wall and the rear wall when the boiler operates in the first capacity range is substantially equal to the third distance between the front wall and the rear wall when the boiler operates at a capacity greater the first capacity range; adding at least one secondary air nozzle to at least one of the front wall and the rear wall, wherein the added secondary air nozzle is on a section of the front wall or rear wall added in conjunction with the increase of the width of the front wall and the rear wall, and after attaching the at least one sidewall, increasing the width of the front wall and the rear wall and adding the at least one secondary air nozzle, operating the chemical recovery boiler at the capacity greater than the first capacity range. Appeal Br. 15-16 (Claims App.). ANALYSIS Appellants' independent claims 16 and 26 recite specific steps to expand a boiler. Appeal Br. 15-17 (Claims App.). The claimed methods require operating a chemical recovery boiler with a combustion zone that has a front wall, a rear wall, a pair of side walls, and a secondary air nozzle associated with at least one of the front or rear walls. Id. As part of the claimed methods, the boiler must be operated in a first capacity range with the sidewalls separated by a first distance and the front/rear walls separated by a third distance. Id. To operate the boiler at a capacity greater than the first capacity range, the claimed methods require moving at least one of the side walls to create a second distance greater than the first distance separating those walls. Id. Importantly, even after changing the amount of 3 Appeal2014-002756 Application 11/577,442 separation between the side walls and adjusting the front/rear walls to accommodate for that change in separation, the claimed method requires the front and rear walls to maintain the same third distance separating them. Id. Finally, the claimed methods require the addition of a secondary air nozzle to the extended front or rear wall. Id. Appellants contend that maintaining the distance between the front/rear walls having secondary air nozzles "ensures optimal air penetration and velocity of streams injected by the secondary air nozzles both before and after the expansion of a recovery boiler." Appeal Br. 8 (citing Spec. 2: 17-3: 18). According to Appellants, previous expansion efforts moved the front or rear wall of the combustion zone, which created gaps that made the secondary air nozzles less effective at providing the desired air velocity and penetration into the combustion zone. Spec. 2: 1-16; Appeal Br. 8-9. "With the claimed invention, shifting a sidewall ... does not change the distance between the front and rear walls" and, as a result, "the penetration and velocity of the combustion air from the secondary air nozzles designed initially for the boiler remain optimal for the expanded boiler." Id. at 10. The Examiner finds Appellants' description of previously known chemical recovery boilers discloses each of the elements of claims 16 and 26, except "providing additional air nozzles/jets and extending the front and rear walls." Final Act. 3 (citing Spec. 3:15-20, 6:1-16) 3. The Examiner 3 The Examiner refers to Appellants' Specification by paragraph numbers, but, because that Specification does not clearly label each paragraph by a number, we have converted the Examiner's references to corresponding page and line numbers. 4 Appeal2014-002756 Application 11/577,442 relies on Saviharju and Reihl to evidence the missing claim elements. Id. at 4. The Examiner cites Saviharju to show it was known to provide "an increased amount of air jets with increased boiler capacity to optimize flow, where the air jets may be provided to the front, rear and side wall of the boiler." Id. (citing Saviharju i-fi-121-26, 46-52, Fig. 2). Riehl is cited to show it was known to "increas[ e] the capacity of a boiler by extending the front and rear walls." Id. (citing Reihl 2:4--11, 7:59-73). In view of AAPA, Saviharju, and Riehl the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made: (1) "to provide additional air nozzles to the walls of AAP A, as taught by Saviharju et al, to the improve air supply arrangement and therefore reduce the amount of harmful emissions from the boiler furnace" (citing Saviharju i-f 14 ), and (2) "to extend the front and rear walls of the boiler of AAPA, as taught by Riehl, in order to increase capacity and facilitate efficient operation of the boiler" (citing Riehl 2: 1-11 ). Appellants challenge both determinations. Appellants' challenge to the obviousness of providing additional secondary air nozzles to the extended portion of the front or rear wall is unpersuasive. Appellants' argument regarding the Examiner's reliance on Saviharju focuses on whether that reference supports the conclusion it would have been obvious to expand the capacity of a chemical recovery boiler and, more specifically, to expand such a boiler by moving a side wall and extending the front/rear walls without changing the distance separating those walls. Appeal Br. 11-12. The Examiner, however, does not rely on Saviharju for that purpose, but to show that there were recognized principles a skilled artisan knew to consider to optimize the number and use of secondary air nozzles located on the front, rear, and/or side walls of a 5 Appeal2014-002756 Application 11/577,442 recovery boiler. Ans. 3--4. Appellants have not apprised us of any error in the Examiner's reliance on Saviharju for that purpose. Moreover, there is certainly a rational connection between the Examiner's factual findings of what Saviharju teaches and the Examiner's reason for modifying the AAPA and Riehl combination to provide the additional secondary air nozzles, as required by claims 16 and 26. However, Appellants' challenge to the Examiner's second determination, based on AAP A and Riehl, is persuasive. Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Riehl as evidence a skilled artisan would have known to extend the rear and front walls, without changing the distance separating them, to increase the capacity of a recovery boiler lacks a rational connection to the facts. Appeal Br. 10-11, 13; Reply Br. 1. Importantly, the AAP A relied upon by the Examiner states, "the enlargement inside the chemical recovery boiler [was] accomplished by reserving space for a relocation of the front (and rear) wall of the furnace, whereby the sidewalls are extended." Spec. 2: 1-3. The Examiner has not challenged this statement. Therefore, the issue is whether a rational connection exists between the factual findings and the Examiner's reason for modifying AAP A with Riehl to change the conventional method of increasing the capacity of a recovery boiler from moving the front and/or rear wall, which increases the distance separating them, to moving a side wall and keeping the distance between the front/rear walls the same. In the Answer, the Examiner explains the logic applied as follows, Riehl is used to provide a general teaching of expanding a boiler by "relocating the sidewalls," i.e. extending the front and rear walls (see col. 2 lines 6-11, and col. 8 lines 69-72 ). Although Riehl involves expanding the boiler by joining two boilers 6 Appeal2014-002756 Application 11/577,442 together, within this JOmmg the front and rear walls are expanded. It is this particular expansion principle, i.e. expanding front and rear walls of a boiler that is being applied to AAP A. Combining AAP A and Riehl thus results in the expansion of the front and rear walls of AAP A such that the sidewalls of AAP A are separated by a greater distance. Since the method of expanding a chemical recovery boiler according to AAP A involves maintaining all of the original walls post expansion and Riehl discloses extending the front and rear walls, the combination of AAP A and Riehl teach expanding a chemical recovery boiler such that "the pair of sidewalls is separated by a second distance greater than the first distance." Combining AAP A with Riehl "facilitate[ s] the efficient operation of the boiler" (see Riehl col. 2 lines 4-11 ). Ans. 3. Appellants point out "Riehl teaches combining two boilers, each having a triangular cross-section, by removing a common side wall between the boilers to form a large[r] triangular boiler." Appeal Br. 10 (citing Riehl 7:59---66). As a result, rather than moving a side wall, Riehl teaches eliminating a side wall to connect two similar boiler units. Reply Br. 2. Likewise, because the Riehl boiler has a triangular configuration and the Examiner identifies the two flat sides as "side walls," Appellants point out Riehl only has one additional wall and, therefore, cannot teach "increasing" or "extending" both the front and rear walls to connect to the repositioned sidewall(s), as claims 16 and 26 require. Id. "Riehl does [not] extend any wall but connects existing walls of two boilers." Id. Appellants also point out that Riehl does not disclose a boiler that utilizes secondary air nozzles or secondary combustion air. Appeal Br. 11. "Accordingly, Riehl does not suggest expanding a boiler in a manner that allows secondary air nozzles to be reused in their original configuration from the pre-expanded boiler." Id. 7 Appeal2014-002756 Application 11/577,442 In view of the above points raised by Appellants, we are persuaded the Examiner's reason (i.e., "to facilitate the efficient operation of the boiler") a skilled artisan would have known to keep the distance between the front/rear walls substantially constant and extend them to accommodate the repositioning of a sidewall lacks a rational underpinning. The Examiner cites Riehl as support a skilled artisan would have known to extend the front and rear walls to "facilitate efficient operation of the boiler." Final Act. 4 (citing Riehl 2:1-11; Ans. 3 (citing Riehl 2:4--11). Riehl states, The configuration of the stack and the arrangement of the components in this embodiment facilitate the efficient operation of the boiler and further make it possible to enlarge the total capacity by adding additional boiler units of the same configuration, the adjacent flat walls of two adjacent boiler units being removed and the outside walls being joined to provide a single stack and boiler assembly. Riehl 2:4--11. Rather than attributing any efficiencies of operation to extending the front/rear walls, Riehl compliments the "configuration of the stack and the arrangement of the components" as resulting in "the efficient operation of the boiler." Riehl also attributes the particular configuration and arrangement of the disclosed boiler as "mak[ing] it possible" to increase capacity by connecting two units of the same configuration, but, as Appellants highlight, Riehl's triangular boiler configuration/arrangement is significantly different than the boiler recited in claims 16 and 26. Furthermore, the Examiner does not explain what, if any, operational efficiencies a skilled artisan would have recognized to result from moving a sidewall and keeping the same space between the front and/or rear walls. On the record before us, the Examiner has not explained, with proper evidentiary support, why a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to 8 Appeal2014-002756 Application 11/577,442 modify the AAPA in the manner claimed. Moreover, the Examiner's analysis of dependent claims 17, 23-25, 27, 28, and 32-35 does not cure the above deficiencies. Final Act. 3-5. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 16, 17, 23-28, and 32-35. SUMMARY We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 16, 17, 23-28, and 32-35. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation