Ex Parte Xia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13062857 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
13/062,857 03/08/2011 Jiyang Xia 239387-4 8004
52082 7590 03/01/2017
General Electric Company
GE Global Patent Operation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
DRODGE, JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1778
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIYANG XIA, RIHUA XIONG, WEI CAI,
WENQING PENG, ZIJUN XIA, and YIWEN SUN
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
Technology Center 1700
Before: PETER F. KRATZ, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—8 and 10—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 In our Decision below we refer to the Specification filed March 8, 2011
(Spec.), the Final Office Action appealed from mailed July 14, 2014 (Final
Act.), the Appeal Brief filed March 12, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 9, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed August 10,
2015 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as General Electric Company,
the assignee of the instant application. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claims are directed to systems and processes for treatment of
solutions, and in particular, treatment of aqueous saline solutions using
miscible organic solvents. Spec. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A treatment system, comprising:
a precipitation unit configured to treat a solution using one
or more miscible organic solvents to produce a mixture of
precipitate solids and a liquid;
a solid-liquid separation unit configured to receive the
mixture of precipitate solids and liquid from the precipitation
unit and to discharge a solids reduced liquid stream;
a recovery unit configured to receive the liquid stream
from the solid-liquid separation unit and to facilitate separating
the liquid stream at least into an organic phase liquid and an
aqueous phase liquid comprising a portion of the one or more
miscible organic solvents; and
a purification unit comprising one or more membrane
devices configured to receive the aqueous phase liquid
comprising a portion of the one or more miscible organic
solvents from the recovery unit and to separate at least a portion
of the one or more miscible organic solvents from the aqueous
phase liquid comprising a portion of the one or more miscible
organic solvents.
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 25.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. Claims 1—8 and 10-25 are provisionally rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1—11 and 15—20 of
copending Application No. 13/275,485. Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
B. Claims 1—5, 8, 10, 21, 22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bader ’0513, in view of Bader ’3384, and Shafer.5 Id. at 4.
C. Claims 6, 7, 11—19, and 23—25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bader ’051,
Bader ’338, Shafer, and further in view of Arba.6 Id. at 7—
8.
D. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bader ’051, Bader ’338, Shafer, and
further in view of Booth.7 Id. at 9.
Appellants request our review of Rejections A—D. Appeal Br. 12—13,
18, and 22.
OPINION
Rejection A — Nonstatutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
(claims 1—8 and 10—25)
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1—8 and 10—25 on the
ground of nonstatutory-obviousness type double patenting over claims 1—11
and 15—20 of copending US Application No. 13/275,485. Final Act. 3.
However, PTO records show that US Application No. 13/275,485 currently
has an abandoned status. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—
11 and 15—20 is moot.
3 Mansour S. Bader, US 6,365,051 Bl, issued April 2, 2002 (“Bader ’051”).
4 Mansour S. Bader, US 7,963,338 Bl, issued June 21, 2011 (“Bader ’338”).
5 Shafer et al., US 8,105,488 B2, issued January 31, 2012 (“Shafer”).
6 Arba et al., US 6,398,965 Bl, issued June 4, 2002 (“Arba”).
7 Donald W. Booth, US 2011/0046787 Al, published February 24, 2011
(“Booth”).
3
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
Rejection B — Obviousness (claims 1—5, 8, 10, 21, 22, 26, and 27)
We affirm Rejection B as to claims 1—5, 8, 21, 22, 26, and 27. We
reverse Rejection B as to claim 10.
The Examiner rejects 1—5, 8, 10, 21, 22, 26, and 27 as obvious over
Bader ’051, Bader ’338, and Shafer. The Examiner finds that Bader ’051
teaches a treatment system similar to that claimed but acknowledges that the
claims differ from Bader ’051 “by requiring there being a solid-liquid
separation unit downstream of the precipitation unit and upstream of the
solids-liquid recovery unit, or alternatively upstream of a solids-liquid
purification unit.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds that Bader ’051
“does recite the solid-liquid separation unit being downstream of such
precipitation unit (column 8, lines 50-52)” and Bader ’338 “teaches to
remove precipitates from first and second streams resulting from purification
steps to treat precipitated, produced water at column 4, lines 30-43 and 55-
65.” Id. at 5. In addition, the Examiner notes that Bader ’338 teaches
varying combinations of liquid-solid separation units which may be used
together with liquid-liquid separation units. Id. (citing Bader ’338, col. 14,
11. 4—34). The Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious to have
employed combination of solid-liquid stages, and liquid-liquid stages,
including separation of solvent and aqueous phases in the instantly claimed
sequence of recovery unit being downstream of a solid-liquid separation
unit, as taught by Shafer and Bader ’338, to ensure an available supply of
solvent for efficient operation of the precipitation stages.” Id. at 6.
4
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
Claims 1—5-
Appellants argue that “[a]s recited in claim 1 of the present
application, a precipitation vessel is followed by a solid-liquid separation
unit, then a recovery unit. By contrast, Bader ’051 discloses the opposite
configuration in which a precipitation unit is followed by a recovery unit,
then a solid-liquid separation unit.” Appeal Br. 14. Therefore, Appellants
urge, “[t]he Examiner’s proposed modification to Bader‘051 contradicts the
teachings of Bader‘051.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 4 (same).
The Examiner explains that Bader ’051 Figure 11 in combination with
Bader ’338 and Shafer suggest a liquid-liquid separation step following a
liquid-solid separation step “in order to enable recycle of the applied organic
solvent(s), and also to provide more highly purified and concentrated
recovery of separated aqueous and organic phases that are not contaminated
by the various solid contaminants present in the feed stream.” Ans. 11. The
Examiner further reasons that
Modifying Bader ‘051 to include a solid-liquid separation unit at
an earlier stage of the system or process, as suggested by Bader
‘338 ... would also have enabled more efficient early separation
of alkaline earth cations, as well as additional contaminants
including heavy metals and cyanide, in a manner facilitating
more efficient recycle and recovery of produced water and
organic phase material.
Id.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants’ arguments are directed to the teachings of Bader ’051 alone (see
8 Appellants do not separately argue claims 2—5 but rather “submit that these
dependent claims are allowable for the reasons outlined above for claim 1.”
Appeal Br. 15.
5
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
Appeal Br. 13—15 and Reply Br. 2-4) and fail to address the combined
teachings of Bader ’051, Bader ’338, and Shafer as presented by the
Examiner. See Final Act. 4—7. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 21, 22, and 26-
Claim 21 is directed to a treatment process and is reproduced below.
21. A treatment process, comprising:
treating a solution using one or more miscible organic
solvents to produce a mixture of precipitate solids and a liquid;
separating the liquid into layers including at least an
organic phase liquid in one layer and an aqueous phase liquid
comprising a portion of the one or more miscible organic
solvents in another layer, and
introducing the aqueous phase liquid into a purification
unit to separate at least a portion of the one or more miscible
organic solvents in the aqueous phase liquid from the aqueous
phase liquid.
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 29 (emphasis added). The Examiner
explains that claim 21 differs from claim 1 “by requiring that the liquid-
liquid separation unit concern separation of aqueous from organic liquid by
separation into layers.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner, in addition to the
findings for claim 1, further finds that
9 Appellants do not separately argue claims 22 and 26 but rather “submit
claims 22 and 26 are allowable for the reasons outlined above for claim 21.”
Appeal Br. 18.
6
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
liquid-liquid separation steps of Bader ’338 include distillation,
membrane distillation, or membrane pervaporation which
concern one or both of aqueous and solvent or organic layers
being separated by membranes or in the case of distillation, a top
aqueous layer being separated from a bottom organic layer, or
vice-versus, depending upon boiling point and/or specific gravity
of the particular organic solvent employed. Such separation into
layers would minimize entrainment of the separated liquid
phases, and thus ensure relatively more highly purified aqueous
and organic solvent streams from the separation.
Id. at 6—7.
Appellants contend that “[t]he stripping unit in Bader ’338 is vapor-
liquid equilibrium based (column 14, line 7) and the Appellants submit that
it does not separate the liquid into layers including at least an organic phase
liquid in one layer and an aqueous phase liquid in another layer.” Appeal
Br. 17. And, Appellants urge that “[t]he corresponding step in Bader ’051 is
vapor membrane distillation, which the Appellants submit also does not
involve physical separation of the liquid into layers.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments fail to identify any reversible error by the
Examiner. Bader ’338 explains that
[t]he over flow stream [68] of the third stage of hydrocyclones
[56] that contains the amine solvent and produced water that is
rich with nearly only sylvinite will be fed into a vapor-liquid
equilibrium based stripping unit [70] to separate the nearly only
sylvinite rich produced water [72] from the amine solvent [74],
The stripping unit could be a flash drum, a vacuum or standard
distillation tower, a vacuum membrane distillation, a vacuum
deaerator, or a pervaporation. The recovered amine solvent [74]
will be recycled to the amine storage tank [76].
Bader ’338, col. 14,11. 4—13 (emphasis added). Bader ’338 also explains
that “Membrane Distillation (MD) refers to the transport of the vapor phase
through pores of a hydrophobic membrane that separate two liquid streams.”
7
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
Id., col. 15,11. 17—20. Thus, Bader ’338 suggests that the membrane
distillation unit separates a feed into two separate liquid streams, an aqueous
stream/layer and an amine solvent stream/layer, that may then be recycled.
Claims 8 and 27—
Claim 8, depending from claim 1, additionally requires “a
pretreatment unit disposed upstream from and in fluid communication with
the precipitation unit, and configured to remove one or more ion species in
the solution.” Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 26. In addition to the
findings above, the Examiner finds that Bader ’051 “further discloses
pretreatment coarse filter and microfilter units configured to remove one or
more of ion species in the solution.” Final Act. 7 (citing Bader ’051, col 18,
11. 50-55 and col. 19,11. 21—28). The Examiner reasons that “it would have
been obvious to have arranged such units upstream of the precipitation unit,
so as to avoid carryover of particulates, for instance, into aqueous or organic
effluent streams.” Id.
Appellants argue that the portion of Bader ’051 relied upon by the
Examiner “discloses physical filters for removing dirt and suspended
materials, but does not explicitly disclose a pretreatment unit configured to
remove one or more ion species in the solution, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 16.
10 Claim 27, like claim 8, additionally require pretreatment of the solution to
reduce concentrations or precipitate out one or more ion species in the
solution. Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 28 and 30. Appellants present
nearly identical arguments for claims 8 and 27 (compare Appeal Br. 16 with
20), therefore, we focus our discussion on claim 8 to resolve the additional
issues for this pair of dependent claims.
8
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
The Examiner additionally finds that “Bader ’051 also disclose[s] the
precipitation process as optionally combined with pretreatment processes to
remove non-radioactive species, and also optionally comprising a two-stage
precipitation process with both stages removing different ones of ionic
species.'1'’ Ans. 12 (emphasis added).
Appellants fail to identify error in the Examiner’s further findings.
Here, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s additional finding that the
pretreatment process may include the removal of certain ionic species.
Therefore, we adopt this finding as fact. Cf In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424,
425 n.3 (CCPA 1964) (“Since appellant has not shown this finding to be
clearly erroneous, we accept it as fact.”).
Claim 10
Claim 10, depending from 1, further requires “a plurality of heat­
exchanging devices at least disposed between the precipitation unit and the
recovery unit and between the recovery unit and the purification unit.”
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 27. The Examiner additionally finds that
Bader teaches a “[sjolid/liquid separation unit (hydrocyclone 24)
communicating with both precipitation and recovery unit.” Final Act. 7.
Appellants urge that the portions of Bader ’051, relied upon by the
Examiner, do not refer to a heat exchanger. Appeal Br. 16. Moreover,
Appellants contend that where Bader ’051 does discuss heat exchangers, it
does not “show a plurality of heat exchangers, disposed at least between the
precipitation unit and recovery unit, and between the recovery unit and
purification unit.” Id. at 17.
9
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
The Examiner answers that Bader ’051 does teach a heat exchanger.
The Examiner points to Figures 7 and 10 and explains that “Figure 7 does
show at least heat exchanger 44 being between purification unit (microfilters
22 and 38 or hydrocyclones 24 and 40) and recovery unit 46/48, with the
composite of figures 7 and 10 suggesting the obviousness of including a
plurality of heat exchangers just upstream of a plurality of membrane
distillation units that function as recovery units.” Ans. 12.
Appellants argue that while the heat exchanger of Bader ’051 may be
located between the purification unit and the recovery unit, claim 10,
depending from claim 1, also requires that the purification unit is
downstream from the recovery unit. Reply Br. 5. But, the purification units
of Bader ’051 are located upstream from the recovery units and cannot meet
the claimed features. Reply Br. 5. In addition, Appellants contend that
“[t]he Examiner appears to suggest it would be obvious to combine the one
heat-exchanger of Figure 7 upstream of a membrane distillation unit and the
one heat-exchanger of Figure 10 upstream of another membrane distillation
unit to obtain a single system having two heat-exchangers when multiple
membrane distillation units are present” but neither figure “disclose or
suggest a plurality of heat-exchangers in a single system.” Reply Br. 5.
We concur with Appellants. Bader ’051, while teaching a heat
exchanger, does not teach or suggest using a plurality of heat exchangers in
a single system in the manner proposed by the Examiner. Moreover, the
Examiner offers no other reason to modify the teachings of Bader ’051 to
include multiple heat exchangers much less provide a reason to include
multiple heat-exchange units in the particular positions as claimed. See e.g.,
Ans. 12. The Examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
10
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[T]o establish a prima
facie case of obviousness based on a combination of elements disclosed in
the prior art, the [Examiner] must articulate the basis on which it concludes
that it would have been obvious to make the claimed invention.” Id.', see also
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, where an
Examiner offers none, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Rejection C— Obviousness (claims 6, 7, 11—19, and 23—25)
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 11—19, and 23—25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bader ’051, Bader ’338, Shafer, and
further in view of Arba. Final Act. 7—8.
We affirm Rejection C as to claims 6, 7, 11—18, and 23—25. We
reverse Rejection C as to claim 19.
Claims 11-1711
Claim 11, similar to claim 1, recites a treatment system and differs, in
part, in that claim 11 additionally requires that the purification unit comprise
“an ionization source ... to provide one or more ionization materials.”
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 27. The Examiner finds that “Arba teaches
addition of such pH adjustment buffers to ionize materials in the feed
stream, upstream of purification membranes ... so as to increase efficiency
of selective removal of strongly ionized, either basic and/or acidic, type
11 Appellants do not separately argue claims 12—17 but rather “submit that
claims 12—17 are allowable for the reasons outlined above for claim 11.”
Appeal Br. 20.
11
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
materials in the membranes.” Final Act. 8. The Examiner also notes that
“Shafer teaches solids-liquid steps for purifying fracturing stream effluent
comprising electrochemical steps such as electrocoagulation, electrolysis
accompanied by generation of electric fields and ionization (column 13, line
53—column 14, line 23).” Id.
Appellants contend that it would not be obvious to combine Arba with
Bader ’051 to arrive at claim 11. Appeal Br. 19. According to Appellants,
“[t]he mechanism taught by Arba to ionize and remove matter has nothing to
do with enhancing vapor pressure of an organic liquid” and, as a result,
“[cjhemical conversion of the material to a more ionized state combined
with vacuum membrane distillation as taught by Bader ’051 would be
nonobvious to a person skilled in the art because there would be no reason to
expect an improvement to the system described by Bader ’051.” Id. \ Ans. 6
(“ionizing an organic liquids is likely to make it more difficult to remove
liquid by way of membrane distillation.”).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error by the
Examiner. As explained by the Examiner, Arba teaches a “system and
process for effectively removing weakly ionic as well as organic materials
from feedwater,” by converting components to an ionized state. Arba, col.
6,11. 49-51, col 5,11. 42—52, and col. 8,1. 52—col. 9,1. 6. The Examiner
proposes using a purification unit, with an ionization source, to receive the
aqueous phase from the recovery unit, i.e., the membrane distillation step.
Final Act. 8. Thus, Appellants’ argument does not adequately explain why
use of membrane distillation in a recovery step would dissuade the skilled
artisan from using an ionization source, i.e., addition of pH adjustment
buffers, in a subsequent purification step. Moreover, Appellants provide no
12
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
evidence supporting this assertion which is based instead on unsubstantiated
attorney argument. Such attorney argument has low probative value. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Attorney argument is not
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can such
argument take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v.
Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, we do not find
Appellants’ contention persuasive of reversible error.
Claims 6 and 7
Claims 6 and 7, depending from claim 1, further require “an
ionization source ... to provide one or more ionization materials” (claim 6)
and where the “ionization source comprises a pH adjustment source ... to
provide pH adjustment materials” (claim 7). Claims Appendix at Appeal Br.
27. In addition to the findings above for claim 11, the Examiner finds that
“Arba teaches both acidic materials such as hydrochloric acid (Example 1)
and basic materials” may be used for pH adjustment. Final Act. 9.
Appellants argue that for the reasons outlined above for claim 11
(relating to the ionization source) and claim 1 (from which claims 6 and 7
depend), claims 6 and 7 are also allowable.
For the reasons discussed above, for claims 1 and 11, Appellants’
arguments for claims 6 and 7 are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 18
Claim 18, depending from claim 11, additionally requires “a
pretreatment unit disposed upstream from and in fluid communication with
the precipitation unit, and configured to precipitate one or more ion species
13
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
in solution.” Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 28. Appellants present
substantially the same argument in support of claim 18 as presented in
support of claims 8 and 27 (Rejection B). Compare Appeal Br. 20-21 with
16 and 18. For the reasons discussed above, for claims 8 and 27 (Rejection
B), Appellants’ arguments for claim 18 are not persuasive of reversible
error.
Claim 19
Claim 19, depending from claim 11, additionally requires “a plurality
of heat-exchanging devices at least disposed between the precipitation unit
and the recovery unit and between the recovery unit and the purification
unit.” Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 29. Appellants, for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 10 (Rejection B), have established that
the Examiner’s rejection falls short of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Moreover, the Examiner has not shown that Arba, as
additionally applied against claim 19, cures the deficiencies discussed above
with respect to the separate rejection of claim 10 (Rejection B).
Claims 23—25
Claim 23, depending from claim 21, additionally requires
“introducing one or more ionization materials into the aqueous phase liquid
to ionize at least a portion of the one or more miscible organic solvents in
the aqueous liquid so that at least a portion of the one or more ionized
organic solvents are removed using the one or more of one or more
membrane devices and one or more ion removal devices.” Claims Appendix
at Appeal Br. 29-30.
14
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
Appellants argue that for the reasons outlined above for claim 11
(relating to the ionization source) and claim 21 (from which claims 23—25),
claims 23—25 are also allowable.
As we discussed above, Appellants’ arguments for claims 11 and 21
are not persuasive of reversible error.
Rejection D — Obviousness (claim 20)
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bader ’051, Bader ’338, Shafer, and further in view of
Booth. Final Act. 9. Claim 20, depending from claim 11, additionally
requires that the “solution comprises fracturing water.” Claims Appendix at
Appeal Br. 29.
We affirm Rejection D.
The Examiner finds that “Booth teaches wastewater treatment from
fracking is effectively treated by ionic removal type separation devices such
as membranes (paragraphs 12 and 13).” Final Act. 9.
Appellants argue that “Booth does not teach a method of treating
fracturing water using one or more miscible organic solvents comprising a
purification unit comprising an ionization source and a removal device
wherein the ionization source is configured to provide one or more
ionization materials to ionize at least a portion of the one or more organic
solvents in the aqueous phase.” Appeal Br. 23.
Appellants do not convince us of reversible error. Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s findings that Booth, the secondary reference, teaches
“wastewater treatment from fracking is effectively treated by ionic removal
type separation devices such as membranes (paragraphs 12 and 13).”
15
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
(Appeal Br. 9). We, therefore, adopt this finding as fact. Cf. Kunzmann,
326 F.2d at 425 n.3 (“Since appellant has not shown this finding to be
clearly erroneous, we accept it as fact.”). Rather, Appellants argue that
Booth, in combination with the remaining references12, fails to suggest the
treatment system including a purification system comprising an ionization
source as claimed. Appeal Br. 23. For the reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 11, this argument fails to identify error.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s provisional rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—25 on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1—11 and 15—20 of copending Application No.
13/275,485 (now abandoned) is moot.
The Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claims 10 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bader ’051, in view of
Bader ’338, Shafer, and Arba (claim 19).
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—5, 8, 21, 22, 26, and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bader ’051, in view of
Bader ’338, and Shafer.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6, 7, 11—18, and 23—25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bader ’051, Bader
’338, Shafer, and further in view of Arba.
12 Both the Examiner (Ans. 12—13) and Appellants (Reply Br. 6—7)
recognize that claim 20, depending from claim 11, requires that the
purification system include an ionization source and that the arguments and
references applied to claim 11 similarly apply to claim 20.
16
Appeal 2015-007494
Application 13/062,857
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Bader ’051, Bader ’338, Shafer, and
further in view of Booth.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8, 11—18,
and 20—27 is affirmed but the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 19 is
reversed. And, the Examiner’s provisional rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—
25 on the ground of nonstatutory-obviousness type double patenting over
claims 1—11 and 15—20 of copending US Application No. 13/275,485 is
moot.
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-IN-PART
17