Ex Parte VAN DEN BERG et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 201311742463 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT ERWIN VAN DEN BERG, FRANCISCUS GERARDUS VAN DONGEN, THOMAS PAUL VON KOSSAK-GLOWCZEWSKI, HENDRIK JAN VAN DER PLOEG, and PIETER LAMMERT ZUIDEVELD ____________ Appeal 2012-004044 Application 11/742,463 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004044 Application 11/742,463 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, and 7 through 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A gasification system comprising a gasification reactor and a synthesis gas cooling vessel, wherein the gasification reactor comprises: - a pressure shell for maintaining a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure; - a slag bath located in a lower part of the pressure shell; - a gasifier wall arranged inside the pressure shell defining a gasification chamber wherein during operation the synthesis gas can be formed, a lower open part of the gasifier wall which is in fluid communication with the slag bath and an open upper end of the gasifier wall which is in fluid communication with a synthesis gas cooling vessel via a connecting conduit wherein in the connecting conduit injecting means are present for injecting a liquid or gaseous cooling medium into the synthesis gas; and wherein the synthesis gas cooling vessel comprises: - an inlet for hot synthesis gas at its upper end; - an outlet for cooled synthesis gas at its lower end such that in use, a substantially downwardly directed flow path of synthesis gas will result; and - wherein in the flow path downwardly directed injecting means are present, said injecting means suited to inject a mist of water into the hot synthesis gas as formed in the gasification reactor. Appeal 2012-004044 Application 11/742,463 3 The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Mitsak US 4,272,256 Jun. 9, 1981 Reich US 4,494,963 Jan. 22, 1985 Köhnen US 4,731,097 Mar. 15, 1988 Doering US H1325 Jul. 5, 1994 Hilton US 5,415,673 May 16, 1995 Stil WO 2004/005438 A1 Jan. 15, 2004 Appellants, App. Br. 3, request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s final Office action: I. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Stil, Reich, Doering and Mitsak. II. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Stil, Reich, Doering, Mitsak and Hilton. III. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Stil, Reich, Doering, Mitsak and Köhnen. OPINION The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Stil and Reich would have led one skilled in the art to a gasification system comprising a synthesis gas cooling vessel where a mist of water is injected into the hot synthesis gas in a Appeal 2012-004044 Application 11/742,463 4 downwardly flow path as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1? 1 ,2 After thorough review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we answer in the negative and AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following for emphasis and completeness. The Examiner found that Stil discloses a gasification system comprising a gasification reactor and a synthesis gas cooling vessel, where the synthesis gas cooling vessel comprises heat exchanging surfaces to cool the synthetic gas. Ans. 4-5; Stil 9. The Examiner also found that Still does not disclose means to directly contact liquid water with the hot synthesis gas as formed in the gasification reactor in the synthesis gas cooling vessel as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Reich teaches it was known by persons of ordinary skill in the art to use a synthesis gas cooling vessel in a gasification system, where the cooling vessel includes means to spray 3 water to cool the synthesis gas and bubble it through a bath to remove undesirable solids. Ans. 6; Reich Figure 1; col. 6, l1. 3-23; col. 7, ll. 45-53. The Examiner 1 We will limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Appellants have not argued the dependent claims separately. Accordingly, claims not argued separately will stand or fall together with independent claim 1. 2 A discussion of Doering, Mitsak, Hilton and Köhnen is unnecessary for disposition of the present appeal. The Examiner relied upon these references for features not related to the dispositive issue. 3 The Examiner treats spraying water and misting as equivalents in the Answer. Ans. 6. Appellants have not adequately argued this finding by the Examiner. See App.Br., generally. Appeal 2012-004044 Application 11/742,463 5 concluded that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Stil’s gasification system by replacing the heat exchanging surfaces in Still’s synthesis gas cooling vessel with a water spray and bath to remove solid particulates from the hot synthesis gas as taught by Reich. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that Reich’s gasification system comprises a reaction chamber on top of a cooling chamber where the synthesis gas exits from the bottom of the reaction chamber into the cooling chamber. App. Br. 4. According to Appellants, Reich’s cooling chamber at the bottom of the gasification system would not be readily adaptable to a gasification system, such as Stil’s, in which the synthesis gas exits from the top of a reaction chamber. Id. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Ans. 4-6. As noted by the Examiner, Appellants’ arguments focus on individual features of the prior art. Id. at 10. While Appellants argue that Reich cooling chamber cannot be adapted to a gasification system such as Stil’s because of how the synthesis gas exits the respective gasification reactors, we note that both gasification systems cool the synthesis gas as it flows in a downward path. In view of this, Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have modified the synthesis gas cooling vessel of Still to incorporate the water spray cooling system. Thus, Appellants’ argument does not adequately address the Examiner’s reasoning for combining the prior art. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons given above and presented by the Examiner. Appeal 2012-004044 Application 11/742,463 6 ORDER The rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (Rejections I-III) are affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation