Ex Parte Akdim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2017

13501866 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2017)

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.
13/501,866 05/21/2012 Mohamed Reda Akdim FMCE-P178 2704
7590
Henry C Query Jr.
504 S Pierce Ave
Wheaton, IL 60187
12/05/2017 EXAMINER
HOBSON, STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1776
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMED REDA AKDIM and
TARIG MUKTHAR ABDALLA
Appeal 2017-001386
Application 13/501,866
Technology Center 1776
Before PETER F. KRATZ, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
N WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—4. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §6.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a cyclone separator, a
method of separating a multiphase fluid into a heavy fraction, a medium
fraction and a light fraction using a cyclone separator, and a method of
retrofitting a cyclone separator.
Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A cyclone separator for separating a heavy fraction
from a multiphase fluid comprising a mixture of the heavy
Appeal 2017-001386
Application 13/501,866
fraction, a medium fraction and a light fraction, the cyclone
separator including:
an elongated cyclone tube which comprises a fluid inlet,
a heavy fraction outlet and a flow bore that extends between the
fluid inlet and the heavy fraction outlet;
a tubular mandrel which is positioned concentrically
within the cyclone tube, the mandrel comprising a central axis,
a first end which is located proximate the fluid inlet, a second
end which is located between the first end and the heavy
fraction outlet, a light fraction outlet that extends generally
axially through the mandrel, an outer diameter surface that
together with the cyclone tube defines an annular flow path for
the multiphase fluid which extends between the fluid inlet and
the flow bore, and a discharge port that extends along the
central axis through the second end of the mandrel and connects
the light fraction outlet with the flow bore;
the outer diameter surface comprising a generally
cylindrical section which extends from proximate the fluid inlet
toward the second end, and a convergence section which
extends between the cylindrical section and the discharge port;
the mandrel further comprising a plurality of discharge
holes which extend through the convergence section between
the flow path and the light fraction outlet;
wherein in operation of the cyclone separator, the
multiphase fluid flows through the fluid inlet and the flow path
and is separated into the light fraction, the medium fraction and
the heavy fraction, and wherein the light fraction flows through
the discharge holes and is discharged through the light fraction
outlet, the medium fractions flows through the discharge port
and is discharged through the light fraction outlet, and the
heavy fraction flows through the flow bore and is discharged
through the heavy fraction outlet.
2. A method for separating a heavy fraction from a
multiphase fluid comprising a mixture of the heavy fraction, a
medium fraction and a light fraction, the method comprising:
providing a cyclone separator which includes an
elongated cyclone tube having a fluid inlet, a heavy fraction
2
Appeal 2017-001386
Application 13/501,866
outlet and a flow bore that extends generally axially from the
fluid inlet to the heavy fraction outlet;
positioning a tubular mandrel concentrically within the
flow bore, the mandrel comprising a central axis, a first end
which is located proximate the fluid inlet, a second end which
is located between the first end and the heavy fraction outlet, a
discharge port which extends along the central axis through the
second end, a cylindrical section which extends from proximate
the fluid inlet toward the second end, and a convergence section
which extends between the cylindrical section and the discharge
port;
introducing the multiphase fluid into the flow bore
through the fluid inlet;
rotating the multiphase fluid to cause it to separate into
the heavy fraction, the medium fraction and the light fraction;
discharging the heavy fraction through the heavy fraction
outlet;
discharging the medium fraction through the discharge
port; and
discharging the light fraction through a number of
discharge holes which extend through the convergence section
of the mandrel.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Tai (as translated)
Wraith
Schook ‘174
Schook ‘181
CN 2282936 Y
EP 1180400 A1
WO 2007/001174
WO 2007/021181
June 3, 1998
Feb. 20, 2002
A1 Jan. 4, 2007
A1 Feb. 22, 2007
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1—3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schook ‘174 in view of Wraith and Schook ‘181.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schook ‘174 in view of Wraith, Schook ‘181, and Tai.
3
Appeal 2017-001386
Application 13/501,866
We reverse the stated rejections. Our reasoning follows.
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
non-patentability resides with the Examiner. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Rejection 1
The Examiner’s fact findings respecting the teachings of Schook ‘174,
the other applied references, and the Examiner’s rationale for modifying
Schook ‘174 based on the applied teachings of Wraith and Schook ‘181 are
insufficient to make out a prima facie case of obviousness for the subject
matter required by the rejected claims for substantially the reasons argued by
Appellants (App. Br. 9—17; Reply Br. 2—7).
In particular, the Examiner relies on Figure 10 of Schook ‘174 for
disclosing or suggesting a cyclone separator comprising, inter alia, a
mandrel (flow body) (30; Fig. 10) positioned within a cyclone tube (21; Fig.
10), the mandrel having first and second ends (33, 40; Fig. 10), a central
axis, a light fraction outlet (35; Fig. 10) that extends generally axially
through the mandrel, a cylindrical section (49; Fig. 10) and a convergence
section (40; Fig. 10), a plurality of discharge/outlet holes (50; Fig. 10), and a
discharge port (41; Fig. 10) on the second end of the mandrel (Final Act. 7—
9, 11-13; Ans. ^10).
As argued by Appellants, however, the flow body (mandrel) 30 of
Schook ‘174 does not include a discharge port that extends axially through
the second end of the mandrel as stated by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
rejection statement (App. Br. 10—11). In this regard, the openings 41 in the
converging portion 40 of the flow body 30 of Schook ‘174 provide access
from flow space 29 that is located between the inner surface of inner tube 21
4
Appeal 2017-001386
Application 13/501,866
and the outer surface of the flow body to the flow body interior space
(Schook ‘174, p. 14,11. 12-15, 28-33, p. 16,11. 18-32; Figs. 8, 10).
In response, the Examiner concurs with Appellants’ argument that the
mandrel/flow body 30 of the Figure 10 embodiment of Schook has a closed
end and does not include “a discharge port that extends along the central axis
through the second end of the mandrel and connects the light fraction outlet
with the flow bore” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly required by claim 2
(Ans. 18; see App. Br. 10; Schook, p. 14,11. 11-15, Figs. 8, 10). However,
the Examiner maintains the rejection over the combination of the applied
references’ teachings.
The Examiner finds that Schook ‘174 fails to teach a “discharge port
that extends along the central axis through [the second end of the mandrel]
and a convergence section which extends between the cylindrical section
and the discharge port or where the plurality of outlet [discharge] holes is in
the convergence section,” as set forth in rejected claim 1, and as similarly
required by the method of claim 2 (Final Act. 9, 12—13; see Ans. 7, 10).1
The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to modify
the Figure 10 embodiment of Schook ‘174 by (1) extending the converging
section 40 of the mandrel 30 of Schook ‘174 back to encompass the
openings 50 in order to stabilize fluid flow in Schook ‘ 174 as taught by
Wraith (Ans. 7; Wraith || 14, 42) and (2) by providing an axially extending
1 For unexplained reasons, the Examiner continues to incorporate the
contrary and erroneous finding that “the mandrel further comprising a
plurality of discharge holes (Schook ‘174:50 in Fig 10) which extend
through the convergence section between the flow path and the light fraction
outlet (Schook ‘174: see orientation of holes 50 in Fig 10, page 16, lines 18-
32)” in the statement of the rejection (Ans. 6; Final Act. 8).
5
Appeal 2017-001386
Application 13/501,866
discharge port for the mandrel of Schook ‘174, as taught by Schook ‘181
(element 64, Fig. 12), to allow for cyclone stability improvement with more
light fraction being present in the fluid to be processed in the separator
(Final Act. 10-11, 13-14; Ans. 7-8, 11-12).
As argued by Appellants, the Examiner fails to establish that the cited
to disclosures in Wraith and Schook ‘181 coupled with the Figure 10
embodiment of Schook ‘174 would have provided any apparent reason for
the proposed modifications of Schook ‘174 (App. Br. 15—17; Reply Br. 2—
7). In particular, Wraith teaches that additional stabilization of the flow of
fluid through the apparatus of Wraith is obtained by the inclusion of a
tapering portion in the elongate member, not that a tapering portion must
incorporate all openings in the elongated member to enhance stabilization of
flow (114). In this regard, the mandrel 30 of Schook ‘174 already includes
a converging (tapered) section 40 having openings 41 and a non-converging
cylindrical portion 49 having openings 50 (Fig. 10).
The Examiner has not reasonably articulated why the teachings of
Wraith in combination with Schook ‘174 would have led an ordinarily
skilled artisan to modify the mandrel 30 of Schook ‘ 174 in the manner and
on the basis proposed by the Examiner (stabilizing fluid flow) for the reason
argued by Appellants (App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 3—5).
In addition, Schook ‘181 teaches that providing a discharge channel
for the light fraction in a flow body that decreases in cross-section, at least
partially, in the flow direction allows for more of a light fraction to
discharge while maintaining or improving cyclone stability (p. 5,11. 1—6, p.
16,11.9-29; Fig. 3; Fig. 12).
6
Appeal 2017-001386
Application 13/501,866
The Examiner has not met the burden to establish that Schook ‘181
teaches or suggests that replacing or substituting the flow body discharge
port of Schook ‘181 for use as part of a significantly different flow body and
cyclone, such as set forth in the Figure 10 embodiment of Schook ‘174, as
proposed by the Examiner would have been reasonably suggested and
expected to provide for the light fraction discharge benefits obtained in the
different cyclone system of Schook ‘181 for the reasons argued by
Appellants (App. Br. 13—14, 16—17; Reply Br. 5—7).
In essence, the Examiner’s factual findings and analysis with respect
to the collective teachings of the references applied by the Examiner fall
short in establishing an apparent reason that would have led an ordinarily
skilled artisan to modify Schook ‘ 174 in a manner that would result in a
cyclone separator and or a separation method as required by Appellants’
claim 1 and/or claim 2.
In this regard, “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness” being asserted. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (quoted with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007)). After all, rejections based on § 103(a) must rest on a factual
basis with these facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of
the invention from the prior art. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967).
Consequently, we reverse Rejection 1.
As for the Examiner’s separate rejection of claim 4 (Rejection 2), the
Examiner employs Tai, as an additionally applied reference, to address
7
Appeal 2017-001386
Application 13/501,866
certain features of the so rejected claim 4 and relies on Schook ‘174 taken in
view of Wraith and Schook ‘181 for substantially similar reasons as set forth
in Rejection 1 with respect to suggesting a substantially similar modification
of the cyclone separator mandrel of Schook ‘ 174 as the Examiner proposes
with respect to the first stated rejection (Final Act. 16—18). The Examiner
does not articulate how Tai would overcome the deficiencies in the base
Rejection 1 that the Examiner carries forward to Rejection 2.
It follows that, on this record, we shall also reverse Rejection 2.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to reject the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
8