OY LANGH TECH AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2021

2020003771 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
14/368,406 06/24/2014 Hans Langh 3501-1196 2916
466 7590 05/18/2021
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD
11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
SHAO, PHILLIP Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1776
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2021 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):
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
ptomail@nixonvan.com
yandtpair@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS LANGH
Appeal 2020-003771
Application 14/368,406
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, 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 26–39.2 See Non-Final Act. 13. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “OY LANGH TECH
AB”. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 40 was objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (Non-Final Act. 16).
3 Claims 21–39 are indicated as rejected at Non-Final Act. 1. However,
claims 21–25 were cancelled with the amendment filed April 9, 2018.
Appeal 2020-003771
Application 14/368,406

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
26. A ship comprising:
an exhaust gas scrubber that scrubs exhaust gases from
the ship's combustion engine and reduces sulphur dioxide
emissions; and
a purification unit that washes water to be purified and
exiting from the exhaust gas scrubber,
wherein the purification unit comprises an effluent circuit
comprising a circulation pump and at least one membrane filter,
wherein said membrane filter is a micro filter or an
ultrafilter, and said membrane filter is not a reverse osmosis
filter, said membrane filter comprising a semipermeable
membrane,
wherein the circulation pump circulates effluent to be
purified in the effluent circuit by feeding effluent to an inlet end
of said at least one membrane filter such that the effluent
flowing through the membrane filter filters through the
semipermeable membrane and exits, purified, from an outlet of
said at least one membrane filter and from the effluent circuit
while a residue containing impurities is led from a discharge
end of said at least one membrane filter back to the circulation
pump and from the circulation pump again to the inlet end of
said at least one membrane filter.

Independent claim 39 is directed to a purification unit for purifying
water, or effluent exiting the exhaust gas scrubber of a ship (Claims
Appendix 18, 19).
Appeal 2020-003771
Application 14/368,406

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Horner US 5,244,579 Sept. 14, 1993
Filson US 5,518,624 May 21, 1996
Williams US 6,183,646 B1 Feb. 6, 2001
Masten US 7,578,939 B2 Aug. 25, 2009
Anttila US 2008/0044335 A1 Feb. 21, 2008
Patterson US 2010/0224070 A1 Sept. 9, 2010
Urmenyi US 2013/0015137 A1 Jan. 17, 2013
Gray WO 02/055182 A1 July 18, 2002
Applicant’s Admission of Prior Art (AAPA), Spec. ¶¶ 1–4
REJECTIONS
Claims 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patterson, Gray, Horner, Filson, and
AAPA.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Patterson, Gray, Horner, Filson, AAPA, and Masten. Non-Final Act.
10.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Patterson, Gray, Horner, Filson, AAPA, and, Williams. Non-Final Act.
11.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Patterson, Gray, Horner, Filson, AAPA, and Urmenyi. Non-Final Act.
11.
Claims 28–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Patterson, Gray, Horner, Filson, AAPA, and Anttila. Non-
Final Act. 12, 13.
Appeal 2020-003771
Application 14/368,406

4
OPINION
After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellant to identify
the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the Examiner’s
rejections for the reasons expressed in the Non-Final Office Action and the
Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Patterson teaches a ship having a purification
system having an exhaust gas scrubber and a purification unit (Non-Final
Act. 3). Appellant’s Specification also states that a ship comprising an
exhaust gas scrubber and a purification unit to purify water exiting from the
exhaust gas scrubber is known (Spec. ¶¶1‒4). The Examiner relies on Gray
to teach that known methods of water treatment include reverse osmosis
(RO), and brings in Horner to teach that reverse osmosis (RO) membranes
are known for use in water purification systems (Non-Final Act. 4). Filson
is relied upon to teach that all of RO filters, micro filters and ultra filters are
relied upon for water purification (Non-Final Act. 5). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
have used a microfilter or ultrafilter in place of an RO filter since the
different filters are taught as interchangeable by the prior art. Id.
It is well settled that, “the test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary
skill in the art.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Appeal 2020-003771
Application 14/368,406

5
Appellant argues that Filson does not disclose that RO membranes are
equivalent to micro filters or ultra filters, but rather discloses that these types
of files can be used in “ultra pure water systems” (Appeal Br. 11‒12). In
order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness
rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be
based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue
are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590 (CCPA
1958); Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). In the
instant case, Filson recognizes that all of micro filters, ultra filters, and RO
filters are known to be used in water purification (Filson, col. 2, ll. 5‒9).
Indeed, Appellant’s Specification recognizes the ability of the person skilled
in the art to select the appropriate type of filtration, including microfiltration,
ultrafiltration, or reverse osmosis, depending on the requirements for water
filtration (Spec. ¶ 30). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that the prior art teaches RO filtration as a known
alternative to microfiltration or ultrafiltration.
Appellant expands on its argument, asserting that one would not have
arrived at the claimed ultrafilter or micro filter starting from Patterson,
which teaches a centrifugal separator as part of the purification system
(Reply Br. 2‒3). In order for a reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the
problem, it must “logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's
attention in considering his problem.” In re ICON Health and Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d
656,658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error
as Appellant fails to consider the applied prior art as a whole and the
inferences that one of ordinary skill would have made. Under the flexible
Appeal 2020-003771
Application 14/368,406

6
inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the
“inferences and creative steps,” or even routine steps, that an ordinary
artisan would employ. Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited
Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The use
of different water filtration membranes, depending, e.g., on the impurities
desired to be removed from the water, would have been well within the skill
and creativity of one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, an artisan of ordinary
skill would have weighed the known advantages and disadvantages of
known alternative filtration techniques. “The fact that the motivating benefit
comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use
as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of
another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed
against one another.” Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340,
1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
On this record, the preponderance of evidence supports that the
claimed subject matter is “no more than the predictable use of prior art
elements [or steps] according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007).
Appellant states that the Office Action sets forth that WO ‘182 (i.e.,
Gray) teaches a micro filter or ultrafilter system (Reply Br. 3 referring to
Non-Final Act. 4). Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the Examiner stated
that Patterson, WO ‘182 and Horner “do not explicitly teach the filter is a
micro or ultra filter” (Non-Final Act. 4). Therefore, this argument does not
show any error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Further, even assuming Appellant is correct that the Examiner did not
specifically respond to Appellant’s assertion that the combination would
Appeal 2020-003771
Application 14/368,406

7
render the invention inoperable (Appeal Br. 12‒13; Reply Br. 5‒6), the
Examiner is relying on known water filtration membranes (generally Ans.).
Appellant’s assertion that “[o]ne cannot use RO filters instead of micro and
ultrafilters to treat the effluent from the scrubber of a ship” due to the
operating pressure required and the impurity levels of the effluent (Reply Br.
5) is contradicted by Appellant’s Specification. Notably, Appellant’s
Specification states that the person skilled in the art has the ability to select
the appropriate type of filtration, including microfiltration, ultrafiltration, or
reverse osmosis, depending on the requirements for water filtration (Spec.
¶ 30). It is also noted that while the independent claims require a membrane
filter that is not a reverse osmosis filter, the claims use the open-ended term
“comprising”, and thus do not exclude the presence of an additional
membrane filter that could be an RO filter.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments fail to persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection for the reasons detailed by the
Examiner (Ans. 19‒20) and because they fail to appreciate the inferences
that one of ordinary skill would have made from the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 26 and 39, as well as dependent claims 27‒38, noting that claims 28‒
32, 35 and 38 are not separately argued, even though they are rejected
separately (generally Appeal Br.).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2020-003771
Application 14/368,406

8

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
26, 27, 33,
34, 36, 37, 39
103(a) Patterson, Gray,
Horner, Filson,
AAPA
26, 27, 33,
34, 36, 37,
39

38 103(a) Patterson, Gray,
Horner, Filson,
AAPA, Masten
38
32 103(a) Patterson, Gray,
Horner, Filson,
AAPA, Williams
32
35 103(a) Patterson, Gray,
Horner, Filson,
AAPA, Urmenyi
35
28–31 103(a) Patterson, Gray,
Horner, Filson,
AAPA, Anttila
28–31
Overall
Outcome
26–39

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED