Ex Parte Zarnescu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13010568 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 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.
13/010,568 01/20/2011 Vlad Zarnescu 1475806.110US1 2978
21874 7590
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
EXAMINER
LAU, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLAD ZARNESCU,
BONNIE COURTEMANCHE,
and JILIN ZHANG
Appeal 2015-006705
Application 13/010,568
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 6, 7, 9-13, and 16—23. Appeal Br. 5. Claims 2—5, 8, 14, and 15
are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-006705
Application 13/010,568
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A flow splitter for distributing solid particles flowing in a
fluid through a piping system, the flow splitter comprising:
a) a divider housing having an inlet configured to connect to an
upstream pipe and having an outlet configured to connect to a
plurality of downstream pipes, wherein the inlet is castellated around
its periphery with peripherally spaced teeth that project radially
inward, and wherein all of the teeth are uniform;
b) a conical divider body mounted concentric within the divider
housing, wherein the conical divider body diverges in a direction from
the inlet of the divider housing to the outlet thereof, and wherein the
conical divider body extends from the inlet of the divider housing to
the outlet thereof, wherein a base of the conical divider body is
defined at the outlet of the divider housing and a tip of the conical
divider body is defined at the inlet of the divider housing; and
c) a plurality of divider vanes, each extending from the conical
divider body to the divider housing, and each divider vane extending
from the base of the conical divider body to the tip thereof, wherein
the divider housing, conical divider body, and divider vanes are
configured and adapted to reduce non-uniformity in particle
concentration from the inlet and to supply a substantially equal
particle flow from the outlet to each of the downstream pipes.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2010/0006012 Al, pub.
Jan. 14, 2010), Le Marrec (US 4,808,043, iss. Feb. 28, 1989), Kerr (US
1,913,675, iss. June 13, 1933), and Wark (US 6,588,598 B2, iss. July 8,
2003).
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Le Marrec, Kerr, Wark, and Courtemanche
(US 2009/0272303 Al, pub. Nov. 5, 2009).
2
Appeal 2015-006705
Application 13/010,568
Claims 18—20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Le Marrec, Kerr, Wark, and Okamoto (US
6,053,118, iss. Apr. 25,2000).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9—11, 13, 16, 21, and 22 as unpatentable
over Matsumoto, Le Marrec, Kerr, and Wark
Resolution of this appeal turns on whether a skilled artisan would
have been motivated to modify Matsumoto to include the conical divider
body (conical core 43) of Le Marrec in the divider housing (Figure 6) of
Matsumoto with the full length divider vanes 14 of Kerr that extend axially
from a base to the tip of the divider body as recited in independent claims 1
and 13 (and independent claim 18 in a separate rejection discussed below)
rather than the half-length divider vanes (ribs 46) of Le Marrec that do not
extend to the apex 44 of conical core 43. Final Act. 2-4, 5—7.
We agree with Appellants that a skilled artisan would not have been
motivated to use the full length divider vanes 14 of Kerr with the conical
divider body 43 of Le Marrec and conical divider housing 41 of Matsumoto.
See Appeal Br. 19. We appreciate the Examiner’s position that the ribs in
Le Marrec are not modified. Ans. 12; see Final Act. 3 (“these divider vanes
[of Le Marrec] are not incorporated in the combination”). However, using
the full-length vanes (radial blades 14) of Kerr with the conical core 43 of
Le Marrec to satisfy the limitation that the claimed divider vanes extend
from the base to the tip of the conical divider body has the same effect as
extending Le Marrec’s half-length vanes. As Appellants point out, Le
Marrec counsels against the use of full-length vanes with conical core 43.
See Appeal Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 14—15; Le Marrec, 6:28—29.
3
Appeal 2015-006705
Application 13/010,568
Although Le Marrec’s preference for the use of half vanes 46 with its
conical core 43 may not teach away from the use of full vanes (see Ans. 14),
such as Kerr’s divider vanes 14 that extend from a base to the top of portion
13, Le Marrec nonetheless teaches the advantages of half vanes in providing
the upper half of conical core 43 with a smooth surface. Le Marrec, 6:28—
29, claims 13, 29. Le Marrec discloses that apex 44 of conical core 43 has a
small angle of 22- or less to avoid clogging and preserve the concentration
of the suspension. Id. at 2:15—17, Fig. 4. The smaller angle and the smooth
upper surface provide “a construction [that] avoids too sudden a change in
the direction of flow which could directly cause segregations, cloggings, and
modifications in the concentration of the suspension and also avoids
pressure changes that might cause losses in speed of flow that might result in
additional cloggings.” Id. at 2:29-34. Therefore, using full vanes 14 of Kerr
undermines this function and operation of Le Marrec’s divider housing.
The Examiner determines that using Le Marrec’s conical divider body
(conical core 43) with Kerr’s full length divider vanes 14 still would provide
improved guides for the coal/air mixture and improved mixing, resulting in
more complete combustion. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 14. We are not persuaded
that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Kerr’s full-length
divider vanes 14 with La Marrec’s conical core 43 in Matsumoto’s conical
flow divider housing when this arrangement would undermine the operation
of Matsumoto’s divider housing as modified with Le Marrec’s conical core
43 to distribute the coal-air flow evenly between downstream multiple pipes
18a, 18b without changing the concentration of the mixture. The Examiner
recognizes that Matsumoto’s and Le Marrec’s divider housings are designed
to divide a particle flow evenly between downstream pipes. See Ans. 12—13.
4
Appeal 2015-006705
Application 13/010,568
If the purpose of the flow splitter of Matsumoto and Le Marrec is to
divide a particle-air flow evenly among multiple downstream pipes, as both
references disclose (see Matsumoto Tflf 15, 79; Le Marrec, 1:44—50, 2:35—41)
and the Examiner recognizes (Ans. 12—13), then a skilled artisan would not
have been motivated to include Kerr’s full-length divider vanes 14 with the
conical core 43 of Le Marrec in the divider housing of Matsumoto. This is
so because Kerr’s divider vanes 14 are designed to change the concentration
of a particle-air flow, rather than to divide the flow evenly as in Matsumoto
and Le Marrec. See Reply Br. 14—15. Kerr’s divider vanes 14 are used with
non-conical cylinder 13 and partition plates 16, 17 to mix the solids more
evenly throughout the gas so the mixture will be substantially homogeneous
when it is divided later between branch conduits 2, 3. Kerr, 1:1—9, 1:90—99.
In this regard, Matsumoto uses ribbon screw 42, which is positioned
upstream of the flow splitter that the Examiner has modified, to swirl the
pulverized coal and distribute it uniformly before the flow splitter divides
the flow between pipes 18a, 18b. Matsumoto 78—79. Thus, Matsumoto
uses ribbon screw 42 to stir up pulverized coal in the air flow and distribute
it uniformly. Then, Matsumoto divides this uniform stream between branch
pipes 18a, 18b via a divider housing. The Examiner modified Matsumoto’s
divider housing with flow divider body 43 of Le Marrec to distribute coal
particles evenly to the downstream pipes. Final Act. 3. This modification is
supported by a rational underpinning based on the teachings of Matsumoto
and Le Marrec that conical divider housings and core 43 promote the even
distribution of a particle-air stream. However, for this very reason, the
Examiner’s proposal to include Kerr’s full-length vanes 14 in Matsumoto’s
divider housing is not supported by a rational underpinning.
5
Appeal 2015-006705
Application 13/010,568
The Examiner has not explained adequately with technical facts or
reasoning why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the
flow splitter of Matsumoto as modified with Le Marrec’s conical divider
body, both of which are designed to divide a flow evenly among multiple
downstream conduits, with Kerr’s full-length vanes 14, which are designed
to change the distribution of particles in the flow versus divide the flow. See
Reply Br. 14—16. As discussed, Matsumoto already uses ribbon screw 42 to
mix and redistribute particles in the flow and Le Marrec indicates that using
full-length vanes in a flow divider (versus a flow mixer) is not a preferred
configuration because it tends to change the distribution and concentration
of coal particles in the flow. Le Marrec, 2:6-41, 6:12—29. Even the half-
length vanes 46 of Le Marrec have bevels 48 “to minimize disturbances in
the path of the suspension.” Id. at 6:51—53. We are not persuaded that a
skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Kerr’s full-length mixing
vanes 14 in the flow divider of Matsumoto, when Matsumoto uses ribbon
screw 42 to mix the particles evenly in the air flow, and partition plates 21 to
form flow passages. Le Marrec uses beveled half-length ribs 46 to divide a
particle flow evenly without changing particle distribution or concentration
as the particle flow is divided among multiple downstream conduits. The
use of Kerr’s full-length vanes 14 undermines the flow dividing function of
Matrumoto’s device without improving the mixing of the coal/air mixture or
the combustion process. Indeed, the use of Kerr’s full-length vanes 14 with
Le Marrec’s divider body 43 appears to undermine the mixing process that
Matsumoto provides upstream of the divider housing by causing clogging
and segregation, as Le Marrec warns, without providing any benefit. Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 16, 21, and 22.
6
Appeal 2015-006705
Application 13/010,568
Claims 12 and 17 as unpatentable over
Matsumoto, Le Marrec, Kerr, Wark, and Courtemanche
The Examiner’s reliance on Courtemanche to teach features of claims
12 and 17 does not cure the deficiencies of Matsumoto, Le Marrec, Kerr,
and Wark as to claims 1 and 13 from which claims 12 and 17 depend. See
Appeal Br. 23. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 17.
Claims 18—20 and 23 as unpatentable over
Matsumoto, Le Marrec, Kerr, Wark, and Okamoto
The Examiner’s reliance on Kerr to provide full-length vanes 14 in the
divider housing of Matsumoto as modified with Le Marrec’s conical divider
core 43 to satisfy the limitations of independent claim 18 is not supported by
a rational underpinning for the reasons discussed above for claims 1 and 13.
See Final Act. 8—9. The Examiner’s reliance on Wark and Okamoto to teach
a castellated inlet and side kickers respectively (see id. at 10) does not cure
the deficiencies of Matsumoto, Le Marrec, and Kerr in rendering obvious a
divider housing with a conical divider body and full-length divider vanes, as
recited in independent claim 18. See Appeal Br. 23—24. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 18—20 and 23.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, 9-13, and 16—23.
REVERSED
7