Ex Parte Williams

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2009

10451616 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAUL DOUGLAS WILLIAMS
____________

Appeal 2009-003580
Application 10/451,616
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 July 20, 2009
____________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, VICE CHIEF Administrative Patent
Judge, and EDWARD C. KIMLIN, and CHARLES F. WARREN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-003580
Application 10/451,616

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 22-40. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 22 and 35 are illustrative:

22. A solid fuel gasifier including:

first wall structure defining a gasification chamber;

means to collect particulate solid residue from gasification in the
gasification chamber;

second wall structure defining a gas combustion chamber;

means arranged for admitting a flow of hot gases from said
gasification chamber to said gas combustion chamber as combustion takes
place; and

means to conduct hot gases from said gasification chamber and/or gas
combustion chamber into thermal contact with said collected particulate
solid residue, for facilitating post-combustion and/or post-reduction of the
solid residue.

35. An agitator bed for fine particulate material, including:

a base surface for supporting the particulate material;

an array of agitator elements arranged adjacent to and dispersed over
the base surface; and

means to reciprocate or otherwise move said agitator elements
through said material on said base surface for agitating the material to
encourage post-combustion and/or post reduction, and for effecting a net
conveyance of the material in a predetermined direction;

wherein said agitator elements are shaped to present varying surface
profiles to said material on said base surface that facilitate said net
conveyance of the material in said predetermined direction.

2
Appeal 2009-003580
Application 10/451,616

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims (Ans. 2-3):
Skelly 2,049,688 Feb. 15, 1932
Burbach 3,090,332 May 21, 1963
Taylor 5,607,487 Mar. 04, 1997

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a solid fuel gasifier (claim
22) and an agitator bed for fine particulate material (claim 35). The gasifier
comprises a gasification chamber and a gas combustion chamber, and means
for admitting a flow of hot gases from the gasification chamber to the gas
combustion chamber. The agitator bed has means for effecting a net
conveyance of particulate material in a predetermined direction.
Claims 22-24 and 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Taylor. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Skelly. The claims also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claim 25 over Taylor,
(b) claim 26 over Taylor in view of Burbach, and
(c) claims 27-31 and 35-40 over Taylor in view of Skelly.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellant and the Examiner. In so doing, we find that the Examiner’s
rejections are not well-founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
We consider first the § 102 rejection of claims 22-24 and 32-34 over
Taylor. Taylor, like Appellant, discloses a solid fuel gasifier. The Examiner
finds that chamber (20) and conical chamber (23) depicted in Taylor’s
Figure 1 correspond to the presently claimed gasification chamber and gas
3
Appeal 2009-003580
Application 10/451,616

combustion chamber, respectively. The claimed gasifier also requires means
arranged for admitting a flow of hot gases from the gasification chamber to
the gas combustion chamber. The Examiner, however, has failed to refute
Appellant’s argument that the gasifier of Taylor fails to include any means
that allows hot gases to flow from gasification chamber (20) to combustion
chamber (23). Taylor discloses that preheated feed material is forced
upward into the gasification zone and “is contacted with upwardly traveling
hot gases from the combustion gases and hot particulate products of the
gasification reaction” (col. 2, ll. 56-58). In response to Appellant’s
argument, the Examiner sets forth the following:
It is submitted that Taylor discloses that the hot gases
from the combustion zone is [sic] in thermal contact with the
particular products of the gasification reaction and further
discloses the ash from the reactor or gasification chamber is
further reduced by oxidizing gas or hot gas from the
combustion chamber, resulting in less tar and oils in the
output effluent (Col. 2, lines 48-58 and Col. 1, lines 46-53).

(Ans. 11, second para.).
Conspicuously absent in the Examiner’s response is any explanation
or analysis of how the cited portions of Taylor, or any other reference
disclosure, describe means arranged for admitting a flow of hot gases from
the gasification chamber to the gas combustion chamber. Consequently,
since it is fundamental that anticipation under § 102 requires a disclosure of
each and every element of the claimed invention in a single prior art
reference, and the Examiner has not established that Taylor describes the
claimed means for admitting such flow of hot gases, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s § 102 rejection over Taylor.
4
Appeal 2009-003580
Application 10/451,616

As for the three § 103 rejections, the Examiner has not set forth the
requisite analysis explaining why it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the gasifier of Taylor such that it
comprises the claimed means arranged for admitting a flow of hot gases
from the gasification chamber to the combustion chamber. The additional
citation of Burbach and Skelly in the § 103 rejections does not remedy the
deficiency of Taylor with respect to the claimed means.
We now turn to the § 102 rejection of claim 35 over Skelly. Claim 35
defines an agitator bed for fine particulate material comprising agitator
elements adjacent to a base surface and means to reciprocate or move the
agitator elements through the particulate material for effecting a net
conveyance of the material in a predetermined direction. The “means” claim
recitation sets forth a requirement that the claim is limited to the
corresponding structure in the Specification and equivalents thereof, and that
the Examiner must establish that Skelly describes such a structure or an
equivalent thereof in order to describe the claimed feature within the
meaning of § 102. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1197 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Appellant’s Specification describes the means as “a grate mechanism
52 [that] is provided for agitating the ash on floor 13 to facilitate the post-
combustion or post-reduction, while simultaneously slowly but
progressively moving the material along the floor 13 to recovery conveyor
54” (Spec. sentence bridging 5-6). The Examiner cites agitator elements 4
of Skelly, arranged over a base surface 3, for meeting the claimed means.
Skelly, in describing how the fine particulate material is agitated, discloses
the following:
5
Appeal 2009-003580
Application 10/451,616

In order to secure uniform distribution of the incoming
fuel to all parts of the retort, and also to secure agitation of
the fire bed, the movable member 3 is given a reciprocating
motion. The member 3 with its member 4, while
reciprocating, rakes the fuel to and fro in the retort causing
the same to be uniformly distributed throughout the length of
the retort and over its fuel burning area, and prevents piling
up of the fuel at different points longitudinally of the retort.
Since members 4 extend upwardly from member 3, the fire
bed will be agitated sufficiently to prevent caking of the fire
bed. Member 3 with its agitating or raking member 4 thus, in
effect, functions as a sliding bottom.

(p.2, l. 70 – p. 3, l. 10).
We agree with Appellant that the relevant structure of Skelly, which
rakes the fuel to and fro for uniform distribution, is not the same or
equivalent to the claimed structure for effecting a net conveyance of the
material in a predetermined direction towards a recovery conveyor. The
Examiner has provided no substantive explanation for how the Skelly
structure is equivalent to the claimed conveyance structure. As noted by
Appellant, the Examiner offers only conclusory remarks in articulating the
rejection but fails to provide the requisite analysis for establishing an
equivalency between structures within the scope of claim 35 and structures
fairly described by Skelly within the meaning of § 102 (see Ans. 10).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejections.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

REVERSED
6
Appeal 2009-003580
Application 10/451,616

ssl

HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
7