11899210 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)

Ex Parte Swoboda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2014

11899210 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/899,210 09/04/2007 Werner Swoboda OST-071186 7537 22876 7590 03/20/2014 FACTOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, LTD. 1327 W. WASHINGTON BLVD. SUITE 5G/H CHICAGO, IL 60607 EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2014 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 WERNER SWOBODA and ANDREAS KELLER ____________ Appeal 2011-011387 Application 11/899,210 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011387 Application 11/899,210 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A process for drying articles in which a) the articles are moved through a drying zone in which they are hardened in an inert-gas atmosphere; and b) inert gas, which is conducted along at least one face which is cooled down to a temperature that lies below the dew point of contaminants contained in the inert gas, is taken from the drying zone constantly or intermittently; wherein c) the inert gas in step b is first conducted along a first face which is at a first temperature at which higher-boiling contaminants condense out, and that the condensate that forms in the process is discharged; and, d) the inert gas which has been pre-cleaned in this way is conducted along at least one second face which is at a lower temperature than the first face, at which temperature lower-boiling contaminants condense out, and that the condensate that forms in the process is discharged, wherein at least part of the cooled faces along which contaminated inert gas is conducted is cleaned from time to time mechanically, by flushing or thermally. Appeal 2011-011387 Application 11/899,210 3 Rejections Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lerner (US 4,795,619, iss. Jan. 3, 1989) and Chung (EP 0 281 680 A1, pub. Sept. 14, 1988). Claims 10-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gileta (US 5,113,882, iss. May 19, 1992), Lerner, and Chung. OPINION Obviousness based on Lerner and Chung Claim 1 recites “[a] process for drying articles” where an inert gas is “conducted along a first face . . . at a first temperature at which higher- boiling point contaminants condense out, and that the condensate that forms in the process is discharged.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner finds that Lerner discloses an inert gas being conducted along a first face at which higher boiling point contaminants condense out, and discharging the condensate, as called for by claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Lerner, col. 6, l. 56-col. 7, l. 14). The Examiner provides two explanations in support of the finding: first, “Lerner implies condensation, such that it is inherent that Lerner will condense out contaminants”; and second, the humidification, as mentioned in Lerner, column 6, line 22, meets the recited condensation because “both result in moisture due to temperatures below a given dew point.” Ans. 9. The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding is incorrect. See App. Br. 11-12, Reply Br. 4-5. The Appellants assert that the portions of Lerner cited by the Examiner fail to disclose condensing out of Appeal 2011-011387 Application 11/899,210 4 contaminants. See App. Br. 12. The Appellants point out that Lerner discloses a steam-air mixture that must be maintained above the mixture dew point temperature in an effort to avoid condensation; and, therefore, assert that “Lerner discloses the opposite of the claimed invention.” App. Br. 12 (citing Lerner, col. 5, ll. 38-40 and col. 8, ll. 5-15). Moreover, the Appellants point out that Lerner explicitly teaches that cooling and condensing are costly and otherwise disadvantageous. Reply Br. 4 (citing Lerner, col. 8, ll. 38-41). The Appellants’ contention is persuasive. With respect to the Examiner’s first explanation that condensation is implied by or inherent in Lerner’s disclosure and the Examiner’s second explanation, equating the disclosed humidification to condensing, it is unclear how Lerner’s process which is performed in a manner to avoid condensation (i.e., by maintaining the gas above the dew point temperature) could “imply” a process which involves condensation, particularly the condensing out of contaminants. Additionally, with respect to the Examiner’s second explanation, the Examiner does not explain how humidification itself discloses contaminants being condensed out in the form of a condensate, as required by claim 1. See Ans. 9; Clm. App’x. Therefore, the Examiner’s finding concerning the applicability of Lerner to at least element (c) of claim 1 is insufficiently supported. The Examiner’s finding particular to Chung does not remedy this unsupported finding. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims as being unpatentable over Lerner and Chung is not sustained. Appeal 2011-011387 Application 11/899,210 5 Obviousness based on Gileta, Lerner, and Chung Claim 10 calls for an installation for drying articles comprising, among other things, a condensation apparatus including a first component and at least one second component. See App. Br., Clms. App’x1. The Examiner finds that Gileta’s cooling coil 48 corresponds to the claimed condensation apparatus except that Gileta’s cooling coil 48 does not include a first component and at least one second component, as required by claim 10. Ans. 5-6. To remedy this deficiency with regard to the rejection of claim 10, the Examiner relies on Lerner’s disclosure. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that “Lerner, another installation for drying articles, discloses that feature, as rejected above.” Ans. 6 (emphasis added). As best as we can understand, the Examiner finds that Lerner discloses the first component and the at least one second component, as required by claim 10. See Ans. 6. The Appellants generally contend “Lerner does not disclose . . . condensing out contaminants from an inert gas along cooled faces.” App. Br. 13. We agree with the Appellants’ general contention. More specifically, the Examiner’s finding concerning Lerner does not point out how Lerner’s apparatus includes a first component and at least one second component, as required by claim 10. As such, the Examiner’s finding 1 More specifically, claim 10 recites that the “first component which has a surface that can be cooled down to a first temperature which lies below the dew point of higher-boiling contaminants, said first component having a first drain via which the higher-boiling contaminants can be discharged” and the “at least one second component which has a surface that can be cooled down to a second temperature which lies below the dew point of lower-boiling contaminants, said second component having a second drain via which the lower-boiling contaminants can be discharged.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. Appeal 2011-011387 Application 11/899,210 6 concerning Lerner is inadequately supported. Additionally, the Examiner’s finding particular to Chung does not remedy the inadequately supported finding discussed above. See Ans. 6-7. Thus, the rejection of claims 10-13 and 15-18 as unpatentable over Gileta, Lerner, and Chung is not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-18. REVERSED Vsh