Symrise AGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 23, 20212020004339 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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. 15/164,294 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation