Ex Parte Brunner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

12792331 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121792,331 06/02/2010
23911 7590 11/25/2016
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tobias BRUNNER
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
080437.62267US 4512
EXAMINER
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2016 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOBIAS BRUNNER, THOMAS HAGLER,
SYLVAIN BASTIAN, and KLAUS SZOUCSEK
Appeal2014-006506
Application 12/792,331
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tobias Brunner et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.47 was held on November 15, 2016.
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-006506
Application 12/792,331
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim pending in
the application and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of operating a cryo-compressed tank, in which
cryogenic hydrogen for supplying a consumer is storable at a
supercritical pressure of 13 bar or more, the method comprising
the acts of:
conveying removed hydrogen that has been heated in an
external heat exchanger to an in-tank heat exchanger provided in
the cryo-compressed tank, through a tank pressure regulating
valve and a branch line from the tank pressure regulating valve
which branches off of a supply line leading to the consumer in
order to compensate for pressure loss resulting from hydrogen
removal from the cryo-compressed tank;
introducing the removed hydrogen that has passed through
the in-tank heat exchanger into the supply line downstream of the
branch line; and
either (a) guiding the removed amount of hydrogen that
has passed through the external heat exchanger without
limitation into the in-tank heat exchanger while the tank pressure
regulating valve is completely open, or (b) having no return of
the hydrogen that has passed through the external heat exchanger
into the in-tank heat exchanger occur at all while the hydrogen
passes through the external heat exchanger and then the tank
pressure regulating valve to continue downstream in the supply
line, wherein the tank pressure regulating valve is completely
closed when a pressure in the cryo-compressed tank is above a
higher tank pressure threshold value for opening the tank
pressure regulating valve and is completely open when the
pressure in the cryo-compressed tank is between the higher tank
pressure threshold value and a lower tank pressure threshold
value corresponding to a minimum desired pressure required by
a hydrogen consumer for operation without functional limitation,
wherein in the supply line downstream of the return of the
removed hydrogen from the in-tank heat exchanger to the supply
line, the supply line has a pressure regulating unit configured to
supply hydrogen to the consumer at the desired pressure
2
Appeal2014-006506
Application 12/792,331
irrespective of changes in pressure in the supply line upstream of
the pressure regulating unit caused by switching the tank
pressure regulating valve.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moen (US 3,827,246, iss. Aug. 6, 1974) and
Andonian (US 5,357,758, iss. Oct. 25, 1994).
II. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moen, Andonian, and Immel (US 2005/0183425
Al, pub. Aug. 25, 2005).
DISCUSSION
Each of the Examiner's rejections is predicated in pertinent part on the
determination that it would have been obvious "to have provided Moen with
the operational setting of Andonian which has only a complete open and
complete close[ d] setting for the pressure regulating valve in order to reduce
the duration of fluid travel through additional heat exchangers which result
in a pressure loss of the fluid." Final Act. 4--5. According to the Examiner,
"the operation of the valve only when the pressure within the tank crosses a
threshold value increases the efficiency of the system." Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that "[ m ]odification of Moen to incorporate a binary
open-or-closed valve" would result in "highly undesirable 'step' changes in
downstream pressure ... as the 'on/off valve switches between its
completely open and completely closed positions" and "therefore would
eliminate Moen's ability to regulate pressure in a manner that maintains the
desired constant pressure supply to consumers." Appeal Br. 12. Thus,
3
Appeal2014-006506
Application 12/792,331
Appellants contend that "one of ordinary skill would not have sought to
combine the teachings of Moen and Andonian because incorporation of an
'on/off valve in the Moen pressure regulator 60 would have rendered Moen
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Id.
An object of Moen's invention is to provide "a system wherein the
heat imparted to the vessel contents [to maintain the desired operating
pressure of the vessel] be controlled by effectively proportioning the flow or
quantity of delivery fluid circulated through the heat exchanger means for
that purpose." Moen, col. 2, 11. 33-38. Moen seeks to operate a pair of
regulators (i.e., regulators 30 and 32 in the embodiment of Figure 1 or
nozzles 80 and 82 of control regulator device 60 in the embodiment of
Figure 2) "cooperatively such that the delivery of fluid is constantly
proportioned between [heat exchanger coil 40 in the embodiment of Figure 1
or heat exchanger 40a in the embodiment of Figure 2] and the by-pass to
maintain the desired operating pressure." Id., col. 3, 11. 47-51; col. 6,
11. 3-37. In the embodiment of Figure 2 of Moen, control regulator device
60 is provided to proportion fluid flow between heat exchanger coil 40
within chamber 18a and bypass line 67. Id., col. 5, 11. 29--40; see also Final
Act. 3 (reading the claimed "tank pressure regulating valve" on Moen's
regulator device 60). When the pressure within chamber 18a is below a
predetermined value, seat 7 4 of control regulator device 60 is closed, and all
fluid flows past open seat 7 6 through nozzle opening 82 and through heat
exchanger 40a, thereby heating the contents of chamber 18a and increasing
the chamber pressure. Id., col. 6, 11. 3-14. Once the chamber pressure rises
to a level sufficient to overcome the bias of spring 88, valve element 72 will
be unseated from nozzle 80, thus permitting some of the fluid to flow
4
Appeal2014-006506
Application 12/792,331
through bypass line 67 directly to discharge valve 36, while simultaneously
moving toward nozzle 82 to reduce flow to coil 40a. Id., col. 6, 11. 18-25.
As the chamber pressure continues to rise, valve element 72 will move
further toward nozzle 82, which will close completely when the chamber
pressure reaches a predetermined upper limit. Id., col. 6, 11. 26-30.
Thus, Moen's chamber pressure control regulator continuously
proportions the flow of fluid from the chamber between the bypass line and
the line leading to the heat exchanger coil within the chamber to maintain
the chamber pressure continuously at the appropriate level. As Moen
explains, valve element 72
will continue to be adjusted between the opposite positions
against the nozzle openings 80 and 82 so that fluid entering the
inlet 62 is proportioned between outlets 64 and 66 of the
regulator, causing only that amount of fluid to pass through the
coil 40a necessary to maintain the desired operating pressure.
Id., col. 6, 11. 31-37 (boldface omitted, emphasis added).
Replacing Moen's continuously adjustable control regulator device 60
with an on/off valve having only a completely open position and a
completely closed position, as proposed by the Examiner, would destroy the
capability of the regulator to constantly proportion the flow of the fluid
between the heat exchanger coil within the chamber and the bypass line to
maintain the desired operating pressure, which, as noted above, is an object
of Moen's invention. Thus, we agree with Appellants that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been prompted to make such a
modification.
The Examiner asserts that passing fluid through the long conduit
leading to the tank heat exchanger in Moen causes a pressure loss and that
" [a] llowing a greater amount of fluid to use the bypass conduit will result in
5
Appeal2014-006506
Application 12/792,331
avoiding this pressure loss." Ans. 10. However, the Examiner does not
provide any evidence or technical reasoning explaining why modifying
Moen to provide a binary on/off tank pressure regulating valve having only a
completely open position and a completely closed position would allow a
greater amount of fluid to use the bypass conduit. As already noted above,
Moen discloses that operation of its continuously adjustable regulator 60
causes "only that amount of fluid to pass through the coil 40a necessary to
maintain the desired operating pressure." Moen, col. 6, 11. 31-37 (boldface
omitted, emphasis added). The Examiner's articulated reason for making
the modification - "to reduce the duration of fluid travel through additional
heat exchangers which result in a pressure loss of the fluid" and thereby
increase the efficiency of the system by operating the valve only when the
tank pressure crosses a threshold value (Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 5)-lacks
rational underpinnings, for the reasons set forth by Appellants on page 8 of
the Reply Brief.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish that the subject
matter of claims 1--4 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moen and Andonian or the rejection of claims 3 and 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moen, Andonian, and Immel.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 is reversed.
REVERSED
6