Ex Parte Von Kossak-Glowczewski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201312014655 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/014,655 01/15/2008 Thomas Paul VON KOSSAK-GLOWCZEWSKI TS9619 (US) 1981 7590 09/26/2013 c/o Shell Oil Company Intellectual Property P.O. Box 2463 Houston, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER AKRAM, IMRAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1725 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2013 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 THOMAS PAUL VON KOSSAK-GLOWCZEWSKI, HENRICUS GIJSBERTUS VAN SCHIE, and JOHANNES GERADUS MARIA SCHILDER __________ Appeal 2012-006776 Application 12/014,655 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFERY T. SMITH, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1 and 3-10. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellants’ invention is directed to a gasification reactor that contains, in relevant part, a pressure shell 1 with a burner 13 protruding into vertical part of the membrane wall 3 via a burner muffle 14 (Fig. 3). Appeal 2012-006776 Application 12/014,655 2 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A gasification reactor comprising a pressure shell, a reaction zone partly bounded by a vertically oriented tubular membrane wall, a horizontally directed burner having a burner head, said burner protruding into the vertical wall part of the membrane wall via a cone-shaped burner muffle, said burner muffle comprising several vertically oriented, concentric and interconnected rings, wherein successive rings have an increasing diameter relative to preceding neighbouring rings resulting in that the burner muffle has a muffle opening for the burner head at one end and a larger opening at its other – flame discharge – end, the rings comprising a conduit having an inlet end for a cooling medium and an outlet for used cooling medium and wherein the muffle opening for the burner head is located between the pressure shell and the membrane wall and wherein at least one ring of the burner muffle protrudes into the reaction zone. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 3-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)/103(a) as being either anticipated or obvious over Köhnen et al. (Köhnen, U.S. 4,818,252, patented Apr. 4, 1989).1 2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Köhnen in view of Heering et al. (Heering, US 5,950,572, patented Sep. 14, 1999). 3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Köhnen in view of Usami et al. (Usami, US 4,802,894, patented Feb. 7, 1989). ISSUE 1 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, and 10 under § 102(b) alone in the Final Office Action (Final Off. Act. 2). In the Answer the Examiner made the present §§ 102(b)/103(a) rejection for the first time. Appellants filed a Reply Brief seeking to maintain the appeal. Appeal 2012-006776 Application 12/014,655 3 Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Köhnen discloses “wherein at least one ring of the burner muffle protrudes into the reaction zone” as required by claim 1? We decide this issue in the affirmative. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS Regarding the claim limitation that at least one ring of the burner muffle protrudes into the reaction zone, the Examiner finds that Köhnen’s Figure 13 shows that “muffle ring 19” protrudes into the reaction zone to form a protective shield over the burner opening (Ans. 5). Appellants argue Köhnen’s tubular piece 19 is not a “ring” of a cone- shaped burner muffle (App. Br. 3). Appellants contend that the Examiner has not asserted that it would have been obvious to modify the tubular piece 19 of Köhnen to form a ring as part of the new rejection based on § 103 (Reply Br. 2). Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines “ring” as “a small circular band of metal.”2 Appellants’ Specification depicts in Figure 3 that the rings 15 shown in cross section are “rings” in that they are closed circular loops. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Köhnen’s tubular piece 19 is not shaped as a “ring” as required by the claims. Though Köhnen discloses that the multi wall pipe may include several tubular pieces 19, the Examiner does not rely on an obviousness analysis to meet the “ring” shape for the protruding muffle burner portion. The Examiner has simply not satisfied the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claim 1 that requires at least one ring of the burner muffle protrudes into the reaction zone. 2 Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. 1236. Appeal 2012-006776 Application 12/014,655 4 On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. ORDER REVERSED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation