Juranitch, James C.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2021

2019003986 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2021)

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.
13/825,013 08/12/2013 James C. Juranitch JX3/110405-000038 5686
103376 7590 01/22/2021
Dykema Gossett PLLC
4000 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2021 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):
MN-IPmail@dykema.com
patents@dykema.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES C. JURANITCH
____________

Appeal 2019-003986
Application 13/825,013
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, 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, 5–11, 14–19, 23–26, 29, and 30. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies “Plasma Tech Holdings, LLC” as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003986
Application 13/825,013

2
The invention relates to the generation of a blended syngas fuel
having a thermal (BTU) content high enough to operate specific devices.
Spec. 1. Claim 1 illustrates the invention (formatting added):
1. A method of extracting energy from a gassifier, the
method comprising the steps of:
delivering a feed stock product to the gassifier, wherein
the gassifier is inductively heated and wherein the gassifier is
plasma assisted;
extracting a fuel product from the gassifier, the extracted
fuel product having a first thermal content characteristic,
wherein the extracted fuel product is extracted syngas;
delivering the extracted fuel product to a fuel blending
system;
monitoring the thermal content of the extracted syngas
and measuring the thermal content of the extracted syngas with
the use of a thermal content measuring device;
mixing a further fuel product comprising natural gas,
wherein the further fuel product has a second thermal content
characteristic with the extracted fuel product in the blending
system, the second thermal content characteristic corresponding
to a higher thermal content than the first thermal content
characteristic, to form a blended fuel product of greater quality
than the extracted fuel product issued by the gassifier, wherein
the blended fuel product is a blended syngas product; and
controlling a final thermal content of the blended syngas
product in response to said step of measuring the thermal
content of the extracted syngas, wherein the final thermal
content is controlled to maintain a determined fuel quality with
at least a minimum BTU.

Independent claim 26 also recites a method of extracting energy from
a plasma gassifier similar to the method of claim 1 but includes different
features.
Appeal 2019-003986
Application 13/825,013

3
The Examiner maintains the following rejections from the Examiner’s
Final Office Action dated February 9, 2018 (Ans. 3):
I. Claims 1, 5–11, 14–19, 23, 25, 26, 29, and 30 rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fulton (US 2007/0181083
A1, published August 9, 2007), Tsangaris (US 2008/0209807 A1, published
September 4, 2008), and Vencill (US 8,172,913 B2, issued May 8, 2012).2

II. Claim 24 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fulton, Tsangaris, Vencill, and Drnevich (US
2011/0031162 A1, published February 10. 2011).

Appellant relies on the same line of argument to address all claims
under appeal. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal based on
the arguments presented for claim 1.

OPINION
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Office
Action and Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1, 5–11, 14–19, 23–26, 29, and 30 based essentially on the Examiner’s fact-
finding and reasoning. We add the following for emphasis.

2 The rejection statement includes previously cancelled claims 4, 12, 13, and
20–22. These claims were canceled via an amendment dated January 26,
2018 that was entered in the record by the Examiner in the appealed Final
Office Action dated February 9, 2018. We modified the rejection statement
to only include the claims presented for review on appeal as previously
amended, which is consistent with the claims listed in the Appeal Brief’s
Claims Appendix.
Appeal 2019-003986
Application 13/825,013

4
Independent claim 1
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action and Answer for a
complete statement of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 2–4;
Ans. 3–5. Briefly, the Examiner finds Fulton teaches controlling a thermal
content of the blended syngas product to maintain a determined fuel quality
with at least a minimum BTU. Ans. 2; Fulton ¶ 83. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Fulton discloses managing the blending of Hythane3 to
maintain maximum range for a vehicle by adding hydrocarbons with a
higher thermal content to the blend to achieve a desirable vehicle range
(thermal content). Ans. 2; Fulton ¶ 83.
Appellant argues that Fulton does not teach or suggest achieving a
desired thermal content of the Hythane as the Examiner contends. Appeal
Br. 8. According to Appellant, no portion of Fulton discloses delivering a
hydrogen enriched fuel that can be used in various vehicles to reduce
emissions of the vehicles and Fulton uses hydrogen for other purposes, such
as a combustion stimulant for accelerating the methane combustion within
an engine or a reducing agent for efficient catalysis at lower exhaust
temperatures. Appeal Br. 8–9, 13; Fulton ¶¶ 3, 5, 64, 123. Appellant asserts
that Fulton does not disclose BTU or thermal content of the fuel as a
parameter to consider in the disclosed process, but instead relies on other
parameters for the blending of the fuel. Appeal Br. 13; Fulton ¶ 3.
Appellant further argues that Fulton does not disclose gasification
being used as anything other than a hydrogen source, or that the product of
the gasification process itself can be used without further separating out the

3 Fulton describes Hythane as a clean gaseous alternative fuel formed from a
mixture of hydrogen and natural gas. Fulton ¶ 2.
Appeal 2019-003986
Application 13/825,013

5
hydrogen produced to increase the percentage of hydrogen present within
the eventual hydrogen source. Appeal Br. 10–11; Fulton ¶ 40. Thus,
Appellant asserts that the amount of hydrogen that is present within the fuel
supplied to the vehicles is the focus of Fulton’s invention and not the
thermal content of the Hythane. Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
As the Examiner explains, Fulton teaches producing a blended fuel by
blending a hydrogen containing gas extracted using a gasification device
with ethane, propane, butane, or higher hydrocarbons to produce a more
efficient fuel for use in a vehicle. Ans. 2–3; Fulton ¶ 83. This is similar to
how Appellant improves the thermal content of the syngas generated by the
claimed method. Spec. 9 (“the syngas in line 17 is directed to a blending
valve 27 that mixes natural gas 18, or any other fuel (not shown) such as
ethane, propane, butane, pentane, etc.” to produce “any fuel that contains
over 600 BTU/cu ft, and preferably 700 to 800 BTU/cu ft.”). Thus, even
though Fulton’s objectives are different from Appellant’s, one having
ordinary skill in the art would have inferred reasonably from Fulton’s
disclosure that it encompasses providing a blended fuel having the requisite
thermal content for adequate operation of a vehicle. See In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that a reference stands for all
of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom).
Therefore, Appellant has not distinguished adequately the claimed invention
from the teachings of the cited art.

Appeal 2019-003986
Application 13/825,013

6
Appellant’s argument that Fulton, unlike the claimed invention,
separates the hydrogen from the gas directly extracted from the gassifier is
also unavailing. Appeal Br. 10–11. We note that claim 1 is written using
the open transitional language “comprising,” and, as drafted, claim 1 does
not preclude a step of separating hydrogen from the gas extracted from the
gassifier. Nevertheless, such a separated hydrogen gas would still be a gas
extracted from the gassifier.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1, 5–11, 14–19, 23–26, 29, and 30 for the reasons the Examiner presents and
we give above.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–11,
14–19, 23,
25, 26, 29,
30
103(a) Fulton, Tsangaris,
Vencill
1, 5–11,
14–19, 23,
25, 26, 29,
30

24 103(a) Fulton, Tsangaris,
Vencill, Drnevich
24
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–11,
14–19,
23–26, 29,
30

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED