Ex Parte Zeiler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613181591 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/181,591 07/13/2011 Martin Zeiler 708627 4694 23548 7590 12/22/2016 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD 700 THIRTEENTH ST. NW SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3960 EXAMINER STULII, VERA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1791 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): DCpatent@leydig.com Chgpatent @ ley dig. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARTIN ZEILER, RALF ASCHER, ROLAND MULLER and HARRY FRISON Appeal 2015-008214 Application 13/181,591 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-008214 Application 13/181,591 Appellants’ appealed invention is illustrated by independent claim 1, reproduced below: 1. A method for treating a fluid, the method comprising: providing a particulate material in the form of a deposited layer having an upstream side and a downstream side; starting treatment of the fluid by directing a flow of the fluid through the deposited layer from the upstream side to the downstream side at a first temperature; reconditioning the deposited layer; resuming treatment of the fluid; wherein the reconditioning comprises - heating the deposited layer to a second temperature; and - cooling the deposited layer to a third temperature at an average cooling rate in the range of up to about 20 °C/min. 2 Appeal 2015-008214 Application 13/181,591 Appellants (App. Br. 2) request review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sarioglu (Sarioglu, K., "Synthesis of octadecyl acrylate-co-etheylene glycol dimethacrylate resin for removal of dark-colored compound from apple juice and comparison with polyvinylpirrolidone (PVPP)," Eur. Food Res. Technol. 225:443-449 (2007)). App. Br. 2; Final Act. 2. OPINION7 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellants. We add the following. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of treating a fluid by directing the fluid through deposited layer of particulate material. The claim include steps for reconditioning the deposited layer of particulate material by first heating the deposited layer and subsequently cooling the deposited layer at an average cooling rate in the range of up to about 20 °C/min. We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a statement of the rejection. Final Act. 2. There is no dispute that Sarioglu does not disclose the claimed cooling rate. Final Act. 2; App. Br. 4. Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to provide a prima facie case of obviousness because one of ordinary skill in 1 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 3 Appeal 2015-008214 Application 13/181,591 the art cannot make a determination of the significance of the cooling rate from Sarioglu’s disclosure. App. Br. 4. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established a case of obviousness. The Examiner has not directed us to any portion of Sarioglu that recognizes the relevance of a cooling rate in the regeneration/reconditioning of a deposited layer of particulate material used to treat a fluid. The Examiner does not direct us to any evidence on this record that the claimed cooling rate is a result-effective variable that would have been optimized to the claimed range by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977) (a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation). Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has met the minimum threshold of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the subject matter of claims 1—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above. In view of our reversal of the prior at rejection, we do not reach the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 of Ralf Ascher dated March 24, 2014 or the evidence of unexpected results in the Specification. App. Br. 3—5; Spec, 27— 28. 4 Appeal 2015-008214 Application 13/181,591 ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation