Juranitch, James Charles. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2020

13984835 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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.
13/984,835 02/25/2014 James Charles Juranitch 110405-008091 7507
103376 7590 06/26/2020
Dykema Gossett PLLC
4000 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
IQBAL, SYED TAHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1736
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2020 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):
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 CHARLES JURANITCH and
THOMAS RAYMOND JURANITCH

Appeal 2019-004605
Application 13/984,835
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. 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 the real party in interest as Plasma Tech
Holdings, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004605
Application 13/984,835

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of generating syngas
using a cupola (Spec. 1: 4–7; Claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of producing syngas by converting a
feedstock in a chamber to syngas by the application of heat, the
chamber having an inlet for feedstock and an outlet for syngas, the
method comprising the steps of:
providing said chamber in the form of a cupola containing a metal
bath, wherein an inductive element at least partially surrounds the
metal bath;
operating the inductive element to react with a metal or metal
alloy in the metal bath to melt the metal or metal alloy, the heat
from the metal bath providing the heat to convert the feedstock to
syngas; and
removing a slag product from said chamber through a slag drain,
wherein the slag drain is disposed at the top of the metal bath and
is configured to keep the metal bath at a constant fill level.

Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 6–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsangaris WO 2008/104088 A1, published
September 4, 2008 in view of Junker US 3,056,847, issued
October 2, 1962.
2. Claims 3–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tsangaris in view of Junker and Collins US 2009/0224210
A1, published September 10, 2009.
Regarding rejection (1), Appellant substantively argues the subject
matter of claims 1, 12, and 17 only (Appeal Br. 6–14). Appellant relies on
the arguments made regarding claim 1 in the arguments made with respect to
Appeal 2019-004605
Application 13/984,835

3
claims 12 and 17 (Appeal Br. 12–14). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant makes no
additional arguments regarding claims 2, 6–11, 13–16, and 18–22.
Therefore, these claims will stand or fall with our analysis of claim 1.
Regarding rejections (2), Appellant makes no arguments with regard
to this rejection (Appeal Br. generally). Claims 3–5 will stand or fall with
our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Rejections (1)
The Examiner’s finding and conclusions regarding Tsangaris and
Junker are located on pages 2 to 4 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds
that Tsangaris teaches the subject matter of claim 1 including, inter alia, a
cupola for containing a metal bath and operating an inductive element to
react with the metal bath (Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds that Tsangaris
teaches an embodiment where a plasma heat source and an induction heating
source are used to melt the contents of the slag zone (Ans. 12). The
Examiner finds Tsangaris uses inductively coupled plasma torches (Ans.
12). The Examiner finds that the slag zone contains metal from the feedstock
that is molten and contained/accumulated there by a weir and a tap port,
which the Examiner finds corresponds to the claimed metal bath (Ans. 12).
The Examiner finds that Tsangaris does not teach that the inductive heating
element surrounds the molten metal bath (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds
that Junker teaches a system for melting metal where an inductive coil
surrounds a molten metal bath (Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to use the coil induction heater of Junker in
Appeal 2019-004605
Application 13/984,835

4
Tsangaris’ system to provide a functional equivalent heating option and the
substitution of one heating solution for another would have been obvious
(Final Act. 3–4).
Appellant argues that Tsangaris does not teach using an inductive
heating element to react with a metal in a metal bath so as to melt the metal
and use the heat from the metal bath providing the heat to convert the feed
stock to syngas as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7). Appellant contends that
the slag zone in Tsangaris does not convert feedstock to syngas but rather is
used to melt the ash created in previous zones of the carbon conversion
system (Appeal Br. 7–8). Appellant argues that Tsangaris uses a plasma
torch to heat the feedstock not inductive heating (Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3).
Appellant argues that Tsangaris does not teach that heat from the
accumulated metal in the slag zone is transferred to the carbon converter
region to convert feedstock into syngas (Appeal Br. 11).
Claim 1 uses the open-ended transitional claim term “comprising” and
thus does not exclude additional steps from the claimed method. Claim 1
further recites that heat from the inductively heated metal bath provides heat
to convert the feedstock to syngas. Although, Appellant contends that
Tsangaris does not teach using the heat from an inductively heated metal
bath to heat directly a feedstock, the Examiner finds that Tsangaris teaches
that the pool of metal collected in the slag zone may be inductively heated
(Ans. 12). Tsangaris’ Figure 16 shows a weir holding back a pool of
metal/slag (26:11–26). Tsangaris discloses that the metal pool results from
feedstock having a significant amount of metal (26:16–19). Tsangaris
teaches that the multi-zone carbon converter has three zones: a carbon
conversion zone, an inter-zone, and a slag zone (14:23–24). The inter-zone
Appeal 2019-004605
Application 13/984,835

5
segregates the carbon conversion zone from the slag zone and regulates the
flow of material between the carbon conversion zone and the slag zone
(14:28–30). Tsangaris discloses that the inter-zone also may provide for the
initial melting of the solid residue into slag by effecting the transfer of
plasma heat to the solid residue (14:30–32). Tsangaris teaches that the inter-
zonal region forms a constriction of the chamber (16:5–7). The inter-zone
may include heat transfer elements that facilitate transfer of plasma heat to
the ash (24:10–12). The inter-zone may also have its own heat source
(24:22–24).
Tsangaris teaches that the slag zone inputs heat to condition the
substantially carbon-free solid residue from the carbon conversion to form a
molten slag material (14:32–34). Tsangaris discloses that the slag zone may
include molten metal from the feedstock and the molten metal/slag may be
inductively heated to melt the ash and form syngas from residual carbon in
the ash (25:10–13, 18–19). Tsangaris discloses that a plasma torch may be
used with slag zone (25:15). Tsangaris’ slag zone may include heat
deflector 61 to direct the plasma heat (shown by swirling line) upward
toward the feedstock in the inter-zonal region containing ceramic balls 165
(Figs. 11, 16; 29:1–2). In other words, Tsangaris discloses that heat from the
slag zone provides heat to the inter-zone region where ash from the
feedstock is heated to a high temperature (Fig. 16; 22: 12–20, 23:4–6).
In light of Tsangaris’ teachings, we agree with the Examiner that the
inductive heat provided to the metal bath, along with the plasma heating,
would provide heat to the feedstock. Tsangaris teaches that the heat from
the slag zone rises and heats up the inter-zone region (Fig. 16). We
understand that to include heating up the residual carbon present in the ash
Appeal 2019-004605
Application 13/984,835

6
formed from the feedstock material. Tsangaris further teaches that residual
carbon in the ash/slag may be converted to syngas (25:18–19).
Claim 1 recites in relevant part, “the heat from the metal bath
providing the heat to convert the feedstock to syngas.” In this case, the
residual carbon in the ash material originated from the feedstock. Tsangaris’
conversion of the carbon in the ash/slag to syngas amounts to a conversion
of the feedstock to syngas. Claim 1 does not require that inductive heat from
the metal bath be applied directly to the feedstock. Nevertheless, as shown
in Tsangaris’ Figures 4 and 16, heat (i.e., dark arrows) from the slag zone 13
rises through the inter-zone 12 and up to the carbon conversion zone 11
where processed feedstock is introduced via inlet 20. See Tsangaris Figure
4. Therefore, the inductively heated metal bath in Tsangaris’ Figure 16
would contribute at some level the heat that finds its way to the carbon
conversion zone 11 as shown in Figure 4 via the upwardly moving dark
arrows where feedstock is converted to syngas (18:10–12).
Appellant’s argument that Tsangaris uses plasma heating does not
appreciate that Tsangaris also teaches that inductive or joule heating may be
applied to the molten metal/slag too (25:10–12). Claim 1 does not exclude
the use of plasma heating in combination with the inductive heating. Indeed,
claims 12 and 17 use a plasma torch or heater in addition to the inductive
heating.
On this record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence favors
the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. We affirm the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 1, 2, and 6–22 over Tsangaris and Junker and the § 103
rejection of claims 3–5 over Tsangaris in view of Junker and Collins.

Appeal 2019-004605
Application 13/984,835

7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–
22
103 Tsangaris, Junker 1, 2, 6–22
3–5 103 Tsangaris, Junker,
Collins
3–5
Overall
Outcome
1–22

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED