Ex Parte Akdim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 5, 201713501866 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation