Naveed AslamDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 15, 20212021001651 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2021) 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. 15/474,157 03/30/2017 Naveed Aslam P17A012 5916 20411 7590 10/15/2021 The Linde Group Law Department 10 Riverview Drive Danbury, CT 06810-5113 EXAMINER BARSS, KEVIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2021 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): LG.US.IP@linde.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NAVEED ASLAM Appeal 2021-001651 Application 15/474,157 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, 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 16, 17, and 20–23. See Appeal Br. 1, 5. Claims 1–15 have been withdrawn. Claims 18 and 19 have been cancelled. See Appeal Br. 14–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 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 “Linde Aktiengesellschaft.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001651 Application 15/474,157 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “is directed to the use of an inert gas and isolator for purposes of commissioning pipeline operations while reducing the risk of explosion.” Spec. ¶ 5. Method claim 16 is the sole independent claim. Claim 16 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 16. A method for transporting and maintaining separation between at least two liquid products through a pipeline comprising introducing a slug of inert gas between the at least two liquid products, wherein the two liquid products are selected from the group consisting of two different liquid products and two different liquid products being two grades of a same liquid product. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Williams US 3,750,687 Aug. 7, 1973 Scampini US 4,701,108 Oct. 20, 1987 Sweeney et al. (“Sweeney”) US 8,770,892 B2 July 8, 2014 August et al. (“August”) US 2015/0167899 A1 June 18, 2015 REJECTIONS2 Claims 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over August and Williams. Claims 16, 17, and 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Williams and Sweeney. 2 The rejections of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and (b) have been withdrawn. See Ans. 15. Appeal 2021-001651 Application 15/474,157 3 Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over August, Williams, and Scampini. Claim 23 is (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Williams, Sweeney, and Scampini. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 16, 21, and 22 as unpatentable over August and Williams Appellant argues claims 16, 21, and 22 together. See Appeal Br. 10– 11. We select independent claim 16 for review, with dependent claims 21 and 22 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Claim 1 recites “transporting . . . at least two liquid products through a pipeline.” This claim further recites “wherein the two liquid products are selected from the group consisting of two different liquid products and two different liquid products being two grades of a same liquid product.” Appellant does not dispute that the primary reference to August teaches “using a single chemical line to send multiple chemicals” (August ¶ 3) or the use of “at least one inert separator” between them (August ¶ 18). Appellant also does not dispute that August teaches that these chemicals can be different. See August ¶¶ 15, 16. Instead, Appellant contends that August fails to teach that the “fluids would be two liquid products selected from the group consisting of two different liquid products and two different liquid products being two grades of a same liquid product.” Appeal Br. 10 (italics added). However, the Examiner did not rely on August for such teaching. See Final Act. 10 (“August does not disclose wherein the two different liquid products are two grades of the same liquid product”). Instead, the Examiner Appeal 2021-001651 Application 15/474,157 4 relied on Williams for such teachings and provides a reason for the combination of August and Williams. See Final Act. 10 (referencing Williams 2:29–32); see also Ans. 16 (“they are at least analogous art that deals with transporting different liquids in a common line and includes the concept of having an inert gas separating these liquids”). The above cited portion of Williams discusses “transporting different types or grades of crude oil in a gathering pipeline.” Williams 2:29–30. Williams also teaches use of a slug “behind” other material as a way to keep them separate. See Williams 2:46–50 (“[i]njecting slugs . . . of oil different from the first grade into the pipeline . . . immediately behind” the first grade). Appellant does not explain how Williams fails to teach the above limitation relating to different grades of the same liquid product. Instead, Appellant only states that “Williams does not cure the above-described deficiencies in August” and that “even if combined in the manner suggested one of ordinary skill would not arrive at the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 11. No further explanation or enlightenment is provided by Appellant on this point. In other words, Appellant is silent as to why or how Williams is deficient in this regard, only that it is.3 In view of the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16, or that the combination of August and Williams fails to render this claim obvious. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 21, and 22. 3 “[A]ttorney argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appeal 2021-001651 Application 15/474,157 5 The rejection of claims 16, 17, and 20–22 as unpatentable over Williams and Sweeney Appellant contends that “Williams and its deficiencies have been discussed in detail above” and that Sweeney “does not cure the deficiencies in Williams.” Appeal Br. 11. However, as previously noted, there is no above detailed discussion of Williams as asserted, only a statement that “Williams does not cure the above-described deficiencies in August” without any explanation, justification, or reference to Williams in support of such an assertion. Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner incorrectly rejected claims 16, 17, and 20–22 as being obvious in view of Williams and Sweeney. We sustain their rejection. The rejection of: (a) claim 23 as unpatentable over August, Williams, and Scampini; and, (b) claim 23 as unpatentable over Williams, Sweeney, and Scampini Appellant contends that “Scampini does not disclose or suggest utilizing and/or maintaining the separation of two separate liquid products selected from the group consisting of two different liquid products and two different liquid products being two grades of a same liquid product.” Appeal Br. 11–12. However, the Examiner did not rely on Scampini for this reason. Instead, the Examiner relied on Scampini for teaching use of “a high pressure compressor” along with “a venture-type inlet” as rendering the additional limitations of claim 23 obvious. Final Act. 16, 17. Appellant does not address this matter. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 23 as being obvious in view of (a) August, Williams, and Scampini and (b) Williams, Sweeney, and Scampini. Appeal 2021-001651 Application 15/474,157 6 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 16, 21, 22 103 August, Williams 16, 21, 22 16, 17, 20– 22 103 Williams, Sweeney 16, 17, 20– 22 23 103 August, Williams, Scampini 23 23 103 Williams, Sweeney, Scampini 23 Overall Outcome 16, 17, 20– 23 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation