Ex Parte Brooks et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 7, 201713533442 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 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. 13/533,442 06/26/2012 Alexander Nelson BROOKS AVI1036-02US 1012 28327 7590 06/08/2017 Law Office of John A. Griecci 16350 Ventura Blvd. Suite D, PMB 555 Encino, CA 91436 EXAMINER COLLADO, CYNTHIA FRANCISCA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3781 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/08/2017 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 ALEXANDER NELSON BROOKS, BART DEAN HIBBS, and DAVID ROBERT THOMPSON __________________ Appeal 2017-006319 Application 13/533,442 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of claims 1–21.1 Appeal Br. 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants’ Request for Participation in the Patent Cooperation Treaty – Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program in a U.S. Application Where the USPTO Was the ISA or IPEA, and the Petition to Make Special was granted on November 9, 2012. See Office of Petitions Decision (mailed Nov. 9, 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(a). Appeal 2017-006319 Application 13/533,442 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A storage tank configured to store a cryogenic liquid, the storage tank being characterized by a gravitational bottom and a gravitational top, comprising: a lateral wall that defines and substantially surrounds a fluid storage space, the lateral wall forming an inner shell characterized by a direct-lateral-contact surface area that is configured to be in direct lateral contact with the cryogenic liquid, wherein the direct-lateral contact surface area of the inner shell is laterally surrounded by an insulator characterized by a thermal conductivity that is different near the gravitational top of the direct-lateral-contact surface area than it is near the gravitational bottom of the direct-lateral-contact surface area. REJECTIONS Claims 1–6, 8, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Johnson (US 3,882,809, iss. May 13, 1975). Claims 7, 9–15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson and Bergsten (US 5,386,706, iss. Feb. 7, 1995). ANALYSIS Claims 1–6, 8, and 16–20 as anticipated by Johnson The Examiner found that Johnson discloses a storage tank, as recited in claims 1 and 8, with an inner shell that has a direct-lateral-contact surface area surrounded by an insulator with a different thermal conductivity near the gravitational top than near the gravitational bottom. Final Act. 2. The Examiner found that Figure 9 shows a single layer of insulation on the lower shell and a double layer of insulation on the upper shell, and found that the thermal resistance increases as the insulation thickness increases. Id. at 2–3; Ans. 2, 7. Figure 9 is reproduced below with the Examiner’s annotations. Appeal 2017-006319 Application 13/533,442 3 Figure 9 of Johnson (on the left above) shows a tank for transporting cryogenic liquids in a ship’s hull. Upper portion 70 is insulated by (1) glass fiber blanket 76 (with spray shield 77 cover) and (2) granular free flowing insulation 78 (with metal weather cover 79). Johnson, 8:14–24. The lower portion of the tank is insulated by a single layer of insulation board 73 (with spray shield 75 cover). Id. at 8:8–14. Figure 9 of Johnson (on the right above) is annotated to illustrate the Examiner’s findings that Johnson’s tank has thicker insulation on the top of the tank, via the double insulation, than the insulation on the tank bottom. Appellants argue that Johnson fails to disclose any information about the thermal conductivity of insulation board 73 on the lower portion of the tank or the thermal conductivity of glass fiber blanket 76 and granular free flowing insulation 78 on the upper portion of the tank. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue that Johnson fails to disclose anything about the comparative thermal conductivities of the upper and lower portions of the storage tank, and the conductivities cannot be derived just because different materials are used to insulate those portions. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2017-006319 Application 13/533,442 4 The Examiner’s finding that Johnson discloses insulation of different thermal conductivity near the gravitational top of the direct-lateral-contact surface area than near the gravitational bottom of that surface area is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Johnson does not disclose the thickness or thermal resistance/conductivity of any of glass fiber blanket 76, granular insulation 78, or insulation board 73 on the tank shown in Figure 9. Johnson, 7:54–8:39. Nor has the Examiner identified any such disclosure in Johnson regarding these materials. Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 7. Even if Figure 9 could be relied on to show the relative thicknesses of the upper and lower layers of insulation, Johnson discloses different types of insulation at the top and bottom of the storage tank. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Lower portion 71 of the tank is surrounded by insulation board 73; upper portion 70 of the tank is surrounded by resilient glass fiber blanket 76 and granular free flowing insulation 78. Johnson, 8:8–24. The Examiner has not established with evidence that the upper insulation layer necessarily has a different thermal resistance/conductivity than the lower insulation layer just because the upper insulation comprises two layers and the lower insulation comprises a single layer. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities; the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient). We note that Figure 8 of Johnson discloses a storage tank with the same insulators (glass fiber blanket 61 and granular insulation 63) over the upper and lower portions of the tank, and a second layer of insulation 66 around the lower portion 65 of the tank. Johnson, 7:9–34. The Examiner has not made any findings as to this embodiment, however. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–6, 8, and 16–20. Appeal 2017-006319 Application 13/533,442 5 Claims 7, 9–15, and 21 as unpatentable over Johnson and Bergsten The Examiner relied on Johnson to teach a storage tank with different thermal conductivities at the gravitational top and bottom. Final Act. 7. The Examiner found that Bergsten teaches an aerogel insulation with different densities near the gravitational top and bottom, as recited in claim 9. Id. at 8. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to provide such aerogel insulation in Johnson to reduce system weight and cost, and to keep a low heat leak rate. Id. (citing Bergsten, 4:15–35); Ans. 8 (same). We agree with Appellants that Bergsten does not teach a storage tank with different densities of aerogel layers at the gravitational top and bottom, as recited in independent claim 9. Appeal Br. 11, 14. Bergsten disposes the same two different density layers 20, 22 around the entire storage container 10 to include the gravitational top and the gravitational bottom of container 10. Bergsten, 4:4–35, Figs. 1–3. Bergsten forms an inner lower density aerogel layer 20 with larger pores and lower thermal conductivity next to the colder tank wall (first lamina 12) and cryogenic fluid 1. Bergsten places an outer higher density aerogel layer 22 around inner layer 20 and next to outer wall (second lamina 16) where the temperatures are warmer. Id. at 4:14–35, Figs. 1–3. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 or its dependent claims 10–15. Nor do we sustain the rejection of claim 7, which depends from claim 1 and recites different aerogel densities, or claim 21, which depends from claim 8 and recites different aerogel densities. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1–21. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation