Ex Parte Thiessen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2006

10430030 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RANDALL J. THIESSEN
_____________
Appeal No. 2006-0601
Application No. 10/430,030
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WALTZ and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal which involves claim 1.
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for
converting dirty fuels to steam and useful gas. With reference
to the appellant’s drawing, the apparatus 10 comprises a
combustor 16, a steam boiler 14 and a gasifier 26. Further
details of this appealed subject matter are set forth in the sole
claim on appeal which reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2006-0601
Application No. 10/430,030
2
1. An apparatus for converting dirty fuels to steam
and useful gas, the apparatus comprising:
a combustor burning dirty fuels producing heat and exhaust;

a steam boiler receiving the heat from the combustor to
produce steam; and
a gasifier wherein biomass material and the exhaust from the
combustor result in useful gas.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner in the Section 102 rejections before us:
Sacks 3,966,634 Jun. 29, 1976
Horgan 4,478,039 Oct. 23, 1984
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by either Horgan or Sacks.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellant and by the examiner, we refer to the brief and
reply brief and to the answer for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of these
rejections.
It is the appellant’s basic position that neither the Horgan
apparatus nor the Sacks apparatus provides the gasifier with
exhaust from the combustor as required by the appealed claim.
More specifically, the appellant argues that conduit 48 of Horgan
is disclosed as transferring heat, but not exhaust, from
Appeal No. 2006-0601
Application No. 10/430,030
3
fluidized bed combustor 20 to gasifier 22. Similarly, the
appellant argues that Sacks discloses transferring heat via heat-
transfer particles, but not exhaust, from combustor 11 to
gasifier 12.
It is true that neither of the applied references expressly
discloses transferring exhaust from the combustor to the
gasifier. However, the absence of express disclosure does not
forestall a finding of anticipation. This is because a reference
will still anticipate if the disclosure of the claim limitation
in question is inherent (as opposed to explicit). See In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Also see W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), (cert. denied),
469 U.S. 851 (1984)); In re In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177
USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973); In re Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019, 176
USPQ 529, 532 (CCPA 1973).
In our view, the Horgan apparatus and the Sacks apparatus
would inherently and necessarily transfer at least some exhaust
from the combustor to the gasifier at least at some point during
operation thereof. With regard to this matter, Horgan
unambiguously teaches that “heat in the high temperature gas [of
combustor 20] is transferred via the conduit 48 to the partial
Appeal No. 2006-0601
Application No. 10/430,030
4
gasifier 22” (column 5, lines 18-19). We do not perceive and the
appellant does not explain how conduit 48 would be capable of
transferring heat without also necessarily transferring at least
some exhaust from the combustor to the gasifier. Analogously,
Sacks unambiguously discloses transferring solid heat-
transferring particles from combustion zone 11 to gasification
zone 12 (e.g., see the paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2),
and there is no perceptible way such transfer could take
place without also necessarily transferring some exhaust
along with the heat-transfer particles.
It is, of course, technically possible to transfer heat
from one piece of equipment to another without also transferring
gas, such as via an indirect heat transfer technique.
Significantly, such indirect heat transfer techniques are
disclosed by both Horgan (e.g., see waste heat boiler 30
disposed within fluidized bed combustor 20) and Sacks (e.g., see
patentee’s indirect heat exchange techniques using
pebbles in figures 1, 3 and 4). It is appropriate to emphasize
that the disclosure of heat transfer from combustor to
gasifier in both Horgan and Sacks is not associated with
the indirect heat transfer disclosures of these references.
Appeal No. 2006-0601
Application No. 10/430,030
5
This fact reinforces our above discussed determination that
Horgan’s and Sack’s heat transfer from combustor to gasifier
occurs by direct communication therebetween and accordingly would
necessarily be accompanied by transfer of exhaust from combuster
to gasifier.
Under these circumstances, we find that both Horgan and
Sacks inherently transfer exhaust along with heat from the
combustor to the gasifier of their respective apparatus. We
hereby sustain, therefore, the examiner’s Section 102(b)
rejections of claim 1 as being anticipated by either Horgan or
Sacks.
Appeal No. 2006-0601
Application No. 10/430,030
6
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
N o time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:hh
Appeal No. 2006-0601
Application No. 10/430,030
7
MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C.
801 GRAND AVE.
STE. 3200
DES MOINES, IA 50309-2721