FARM PILOT PROJECT COORDINATION, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

2019004378 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020)

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.
15/355,712 11/18/2016 Robert P. CARNAHAN 0121803_CIP1 7654
73325 7590 05/20/2020
Matthew G. McKinney
Allen, Dyer, Doppelt & Gilchrist, P.A.
255 South Orange Avenue
Suite 1401
Orlando, FL 32801
EXAMINER
KEYWORTH, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2020 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):
creganoa@allendyer.com
mmckinney@allendyer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT P. CARNAHAN, CHRISTOPHER C. TUBBS, and
NIDAL SAMAD
Appeal 2019-004378
Application 15/355,712
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11–15, and 19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Farm Pilot
Coordination, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004378
Application 15/355,712

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a method and system
for treating agricultural and industrial wastewater with reduced retention
time. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is illustrative, and we reproduce claim 1 below and
add emphasis to certain key recitations:
1. A system of treatment of wastewater, the system
comprising:
a chemical feed system configured to add acids, bases, or
any combination thereof, to adjust a pH of a wastewater;
a coagulant feed system coupled to the chemical feed
system and configured to add a coagulant to the wastewater to
produce carbon dioxide to buoy up coagulated solids;
a separator coupled to the coagulant feed system and
having interior sidewalls and a lower settling zone configured
to collect settled solids and an upper flotation zone to collect
the coagulated solids buoyed up by the carbon dioxide by
reacting the coagulant with the wastewater; and
an effluent collection system in fluid communication
with the separator;
wherein the separator comprises a weir and a
floatation hood, the floatation hood having an outer lower
edge touching the interior sidewalls and defining a lower
opening that spans across a width of the separator and
sidewalls that extend upwards from a lower opening to an upper
orifice having a diameter less that the lower opening to define
an angle of inclination, the upper orifice positioned below a top
of the weir located at a top of the separator and the weir is
coupled to the effluent collection system;
wherein the separator comprises at least one upper
effluent orifice at a constant depth below the lower opening of
the floatation hood and above the bottom of the separator to

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated May 24, 2018
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed November 20, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer dated March 14, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed May 14, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-004378
Application 15/355,712

3
remove clarified effluent, and an influent orifice formed in the
interior sidewalls below the outer lower edge of the floatation
hood.

Appeal Br. 12 (Claim App.). The two other independent claims on appeal,
claims 13 and 19 include recitations substantively similar to the recitation
we emphasize above.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name
McAninch et al.
(“McAninch”)
Keeter et al.
(“Keeter”)
Stewart
Matsufuji et al.
(“Matsufuji”)

Reference
US 4,744,903

US 4,994,179

US 7,344,647 B2
WO 2011/007837 A1

Date
May 17, 1988

Feb. 19, 1991

Mar. 18, 2008
Jan. 20, 2011

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Keeter in view of McAninch and Matsufuji. Final Act. 2.
B. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Keeter in view of
McAninch, Matsufuji, and Stewart. Id. at 7.
C. Claims 13–15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Keeter in
view of Matsufuji. Id.

Appeal 2019-004378
Application 15/355,712

4
OPINION
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative
steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
To resolve the issues before us on appeal, we focus on the Examiner’s
findings and determinations that relate to the error Appellant identifies. The
Examiner finds that Keeter teaches a wastewater treatment system with a
separator meeting most of the separator recitations of claims 1, 13, and 19.
Final Act. 2, 7–8. The Examiner finds that Keeter teaches an annular space
between the hood and the sidewalls of the separator and, thus, does not teach
an outer lower edge touching the sidewalls. Id. at 3, 8. The Examiner finds
that Matsufuji teaches a similar vessel with a hood that touches interior
sidewalls of the separator. Id. The Examiner provides a reason to combine
the teachings of Matsufuji and Keeter as follows:
[Matsufuji’s] design securely connects the hood to the separator
and allows for separation of the fluid exiting the top of the hood
from the main fluid if that is desired. Thus, it would have been
obvious to modify the hood of Keeter to touch the sidewalls of
the separator in order to securely place the hood within the
Appeal 2019-004378
Application 15/355,712

5
separator and to separate the fluid passed through the hood
from the main fluid.
Id. at 3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided an adequate
reason why a person of skill in the art would have modified the Keeter
separator so that its hood touches the separator’s sidewalls. Appeal Br. 7–9.
Appellant’s argument persuades us of error. The gap between Keeter’s hood
and sidewalls is illustrated by Keeter Figure 2 which we reproduce below.

Keeter Figure 2 is a sectional view of Keeter’s separator. Keeter 3:29–30.
Keeter explains that its hood 80 is sized to form small annular passageway
86. Keeter 5:4–7 (“The outer diameter of the edge 82 hood 90 is less than
the inside diameter of the separator shell 50 but is greater in diameter than
Appeal 2019-004378
Application 15/355,712

6
the hydrocyclone 66 thus forming a small annular passageway 86.”); see
also id. at 2:11–14 (referencing the “annular passageway” in summary of the
invention).
Although we agree with the Examiner that Keeter does not explicitly
state the purpose or need for the annular passageway (Ans. 4), Keeter as a
whole suggests that inclusion of the annular passageway is of some
importance. As explained above, Keeter explicitly references the
passageway in both its figure and its text. Moreover, Appellant and the
Examiner agree that elimination of Keeter’s annular passageway 86 by
extension of Keeter’s hood 90 to its separator shell 50 would affect the fluid
flow of the Keeter process. Appeal Br. 9–10 (providing a theory as to how
modification of Keeter would affect fluid flow); Final Act. 3 (stating that
modification of Keeter would serve to “separate the fluid passed through the
hood from the main fluid”). For example, it is possible that, if one were to
eliminate annual passageway 86 from Keeter’s apparatus, any heavier
contaminants that flow upwards through hydrocyclone cylinder 66 and
conduit 88 would then fall to the base and build up at the base of hood 80
and with no means of escape. Keeter Fig. 2. Matusfuji, in contrast, provides
froth recovery port 17 to avoid build up at the base of its recovery tray 16.
Matsufuji ¶ 27; Fig. 1.
The Examiner states that a person of skill in the art would have
modified Keeter to “allow[] for separation of the fluid exiting the top of the
hood [from] the main fluid if that is desired,” but the Examiner does not
indicate why a person of skill in the art would have desired such a
separation. Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). Indeed, Keeter suggests such a
separation is not desired by implying that annular passageway 86 has some
Appeal 2019-004378
Application 15/355,712

7
importance to Keeter’s operation. See, e.g., Keeter Fig. 2, 2:11–14, 5:4–7.
The evidence does not support that a person of skill in the art would have
changed Keeter to separate fluids exiting the top of the hood from the main
fluid without having a reason to do so.
Because the preponderance of the evidence does not adequately
support the Examiner’s stated rationale for modification of Keeter based on
Matsufuji, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–9,
11, 12
103 Keeter, McAninch,
Matsufuji
1–3, 5–9,
11, 12
4 103 Keeter, McAninch,
Matsufuji, Stewart
4
13–15, 19 103 Keeter, Matsufuji 13–15, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–
15, 19

REVERSED