Symrise AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 23, 2021

2020004339 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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.
15/164,294 05/25/2016 Alexander Balde 1507-159 7871
28249 7590 06/23/2021
DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP
1000 WOODBURY ROAD
SUITE 405
WOODBURY, NY 11797
EXAMINER
SCHALLER, CYNTHIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2021 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):
usptomail@dilworthbarrese.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER BALDE, ALEXANDER DIRING,
ERIC GRUBER, MARC HOFFMANN, ALEXANDER SILBERNAGEL,
VIKTOR VORRAT, and JENNY WEIẞBRODT
Appeal 2020-004339
Application 15/164,294
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, 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 1–7, 10, 11, and 15–17. (Final Act. 1.)
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Symrise AG. (Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal 2020-004339
Application 15/164,294
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device for producing spray-dried
agglomerates. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A device for the spray-drying agglomeration of particles,
comprising
(1) a chamber containing
(i) in an upper region of the chamber a spray drying
segment (A) in which a feed liquid atomizer (Z1) is placed
and an inlet at the top of the spray drying segment (A) for
spraying a slurry; and
(ii) in a lower region of the chamber an integrated
fluidized bed (B), said integrated fluidized bed (B)
containing
(a) a nozzle or atomizer construction (Z2) for
spraying a binder liquid,
(b) an outlet port (H) located at the bottom of a side
wall of the integrated fluidized bed (B) and
(c) a dam construction (G) located between the
outlet port (H) and a zigzag classifier (P) for
regulating the product amount,
(2) the zigzag classifier (P) connected to the dam construction
(G) and located outside of the lower region of the chamber, and
(3) an external pathway connecting the zigzag classifier (P) and
the inlet at the top of the spray drying segment (A) for returning
fine dust.
Appeal 2020-004339
Application 15/164,294
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Uhlemann US 5,213,820 May 25, 1993
Hansen US 6,711,831 B1 Mar. 30, 2004
Nielsen WO 2007/124745 A1 Nov. 8, 2007
REJECTION
Claims 1–7, 10, 11, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nielsen, Uhlemann, and Hansen. (Final Act. 3.)
OPINION
After review of the respective positions Appellant provides in the
Appeal Brief and the Examiner provides in the Final Office Action and the
Answer, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1–7, 10, 11,
and 15–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons Appellant provides. We
add the following.
The dispositive issue for this appeal is:
Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Nielsen,
Uhlemann, and Hansen suggests a device for spray-drying agglomeration of
particles comprising a zigzag classifier positioned outside of the lower
region of the chamber and connected to the spray drying segment through an
external pathway and an inlet at the top of the spray drying segment for
returning fine dust as required by independent claim 1?
We answer this question in the affirmative.
The Examiner finds Nielsen discloses an agglomeration apparatus
comprising a fluidized bed, a source of descending particles, one or more
nozzles for atomizing an agglomeration fluid and an outlet for discharging
Appeal 2020-004339
Application 15/164,294
4
the agglomerated particles. (Final Act. 3–4.) The Examiner finds Nielsen
differs from the claimed invention by failing to teach a zigzag classifier
positioned outside of the lower region of the chamber and connected to the
spray drying segment through an external pathway leading to an inlet at the
top of the spray drying chamber. (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner finds
Uhlemann teaches an agglomeration apparatus comprising a zigzag classifier
positioned outside of the lower region of the chamber. (Final Act. 5.) The
Examiner finds Uhlemann fails to teach an external pathway connecting the
zigzag classifier and the inlet at the top of the spray drying segment for
returning fine dust as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner finds
Hansen teaches an agglomeration apparatus wherein after the treatment
process the particle loaded gas stream is reintroduced to the upper portion of
the drying chamber. (Final Act. 5–6.) The Examiner concludes that the
combined teachings of Nielsen, Uhlemann, and Hansen would have
suggested an agglomeration apparatus comprising a zigzag classifier
positioned outside of the lower region of the chamber and connected to the
spray drying segment through an external pathway leading to an inlet at the
top of the spray drying segment for returning fine dust to the apparatus.
(Final Act. 6.)
Appellant’s invention is directed to a device for the spray-drying
agglomeration of particles wherein small particles are recirculated back to
the inlet of the spray drying segment located at the top of the device.
(Fig. 1.) The Examiner’s proposed combination of Nielsen, Uhlemann, and
Hansen fails to suggest the device required by the claimed invention. In
Nielsen, the descending particles are introduced at the top of the device
through inlet 19 while fluidized bed 8 and nozzles 12, for atomizing the
agglomeration fluid, are located at the bottom of the device. (Nielsen Fig. 2.)
Appeal 2020-004339
Application 15/164,294
5
In Uhlemann’s device, fluidized bed 4 and zigzag classifier 7 are located at
the bottom of the device wherein return shaft 9 delivers the particles to the
top of fluidized bed 4. (Uhlemann Fig. 1.) In Hansen’s device, after reaction,
the gasses pass through pipe 24 to the upper portion of chamber 2 wherein
the fine particles pass through and are entrained/collected on filters 10.
(Hansen Fig. 1.) Contrary to the Examiner’s position, the combination of
Nielsen, Uhlemann, and Hansen does not suggest a device for spray-drying
agglomeration of particles comprising a zigzag classifier positioned outside
of the lower region of the chamber connected to the spray drying segment
through an external pathway that would return fine dust to the top of the
device as required by independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejection of
claims 1–7, 10, 11, and 15–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons
Appellant presents and we give above.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 10, 11,
15–17
103 Nielsen,
Uhlemann, Hansen
1–7, 10, 11,
15–17
REVERSED