Ex Parte Briglia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

11279499 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/279,499 04/12/2006 Alain Briglia Serie 7085 8215
7590 09/26/2012
Ms. Linda K. Russell
Air Liquide Intellectual Property Dept.
2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1800
Houston, TX 77056
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2012 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 ALAIN BRIGLIA,
FREDERIC JUDAS,
and MICHAEL A. TURNEY
__________

Appeal 2011-004828
Application 11/279,499
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004828
Application 11/279,499

2

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1 and 3-34. Claims 35-43 are also pending but
have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a method for removing impurities
from hydrogen gas. Claims 1 and 21, reproduced below, are illustrative.
1. A method for removing impurities from hydrogen gas,
comprising:
a) passing the hydrogen gas through a first scrubbing unit
comprising a reducing agent in solution to at least partially remove
chlorine and chloramines from the hydrogen gas, wherein the first
scrubbing unit comprises a first inlet for receiving the hydrogen gas
and a first enclosure in which the hydrogen gas contacts the solution
having the reducing agent
b) passing the hydrogen gas from the first scrubbing unit
through a second scrubbing unit comprising an acid in solution to at
least partially remove ammonia from the hydrogen gas, wherein the
second scrubbing unit comprises a second inlet for receiving the
hydrogen gas and a second enclosure in which the hydrogen gas
contacts the solution having the acid.
21. A method for removing impurities from hydrogen gas,
comprising:
a) contacting the hydrogen gas with a reducing agent in
aqueous solution to at least partially remove chlorine and chloramines
from the hydrogen gas, wherein the reducing agent is selected from
the group comprising sodium metabisulfite, sodium sulfite, and
sodium hyposulfite.
Appeal 2011-004828
Application 11/279,499

3

Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added).1
The Appellants seek review of the rejection of claims 1 and 3-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bieling,2 the admitted
prior art,3 Ehrhardt,4 and optionally Munday5 or Schoubye.6
This rejection is sustained for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer.7 We add the following for emphasis.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds the admitted prior art teaches “hydrogen gas produced
by electrolysis of an alkali metal chloride solution often includes impurities such as
chlorine and ammonia and these impurities are undesirable.” Ans. 6; see also
Spec. 1, ll. 12-22.8 There is no dispute on this record that the hydrogen gas
disclosed in Bieling, which is produced by the electrolysis of alkali chloride, would
have been expected to include chlorine and ammonia as undesirable impurities.
See Ans. 6-7.

1 Appeal Brief dated August 11, 2010.
2 DD 70566 published January 5, 1970. We rely on an English translation dated
October 2010, which is of record in the instant application, as evidence of the
Bieling disclosure.
3 Page 1 of the Appellants’ Specification.
4 DE 10233931 published February 5, 2004. We rely on an English translation
dated October 2010, which is of record in the instant application, as evidence of
the Ehrhardt disclosure.
5 US 4,185,079 issued January 22, 1980.
6 US 4,348,373 issued September 7, 1982.
7 Examiner’s Answer dated October 26, 2010 (“Ans.”).
8 According to the Appellants’ Specification, chloramines are formed when
chlorine and ammonia are combined. Spec. 1, ll. 22-26.
Appeal 2011-004828
Application 11/279,499

4

The Examiner finds Bieling uses a sulfite solution, such as sodium sulfite, to
remove chlorine but does not disclose removing ammonia from the hydrogen gas.
Id. at 5-6; Bieling 2, l. 22-3, l. 7. The Examiner finds Ehrhardt teaches a solution
containing either sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid is useful for separating ammonia
from a hydrogen-containing gas.9 Ans. 7; Ehrhardt, paras. [0034], [0037]. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to use the acid solution disclosed in Ehrhardt to remove ammonia from the
hydrogen gas disclosed in Bieling. Ans. 7.
The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s findings of
fact. Rather, the Appellants argue the gas stream in Ehrhardt does not comprise
chlorine and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Bieling and
Ehrhardt because these references are directed to different chemical processes. Br.
14-15.
The Appellants’ arguments fail to consider the prior art as a whole. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art). The Examiner merely relies on Ehrhardt to establish that a solution of
sulfuric or phosphoric acid was known to be useful for separating ammonia from a
hydrogen-containing gas. Ans. 11. Based on the evidence of record, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found this teaching in Ehrhardt pertinent to the
problem of removing ammonia from the hydrogen gas disclosed in Bieling. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“if a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would

9 The Examiner finds Munday and Schoubye teach phosphoric acid and sulfuric
acid, respectively, may be removed from a gas using a water scrubbing step as
recited in the Appellants’ claims 3 and 34. Ans. 8.
Appeal 2011-004828
Application 11/279,499

5

recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”).
For the reasons set forth above and in the Examiner’s Answer, we will
sustain the § 103(a) rejection on appeal.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2011).

AFFIRMED
bar