Ex Parte Christensen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 7, 2016

13777175 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131777,175 02/26/2013 13897 7590 10/12/2016 Abel Law Group, LLP 8911 N. Capital of Texas Hwy Bldg 4, Suite 4200 Austin, TX 78759 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Claus Hviid Christensen 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. 3982-P50057 9938 EXAMINER OLSEN,KAJK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1731 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/12/2016 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): mail@Abel-IP.com hmuensterer@abel-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLAUS HVIID CHRISTENSEN, TUE JOHANNESSEN, ULRICH QUAADE, JENS KEHLET NORSKOV, and RASMUS ZINK SORENSEN Appeal2015-006012 Application 13/777,175 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added to highlight disputed limitation): 1. A method for the selective catalytic reduction ofNOx in waste gas containing oxygen by using ammonia and a reduction catalyst, wherein the method comprises providing gaseous ammonia Appeal2015-006012 Application 13/777,175 by heating a solid storage medium capable of releasing ammonia and comprising one or more salts of general formula: wherein M represents one or more cations selected from alkaline earth metals and transition metals, X represents one or more anions, a represents the number of cations per salt molecule, z represents the number of anions per salt molecule, and n is a number of from 2 to 12, the one or more salts having been compressed to a bulk density above 70% of a skeleton density before use thereof, and controlling a release rate of ammonia depending on a content ofNOx in the waste gas. Claims 7 and 14, the other independent claims, similarly recite a method of using one or more salts having been compressed to a bulk density above 70% of a skeleton density before use as a source of ammonia but are specific to an exhaust gas from a combustion process. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal. The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a): (a) claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Marko et al. (US 6,387,336 B2, issued May 14, 2002) ("Marko"); and (b) claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Marko and Pfister et al. (US 2001/0042378 Al, published November 22, 2001) ("Pfister"). 2 Appeal2015-006012 Application 13/777,175 ANALYSIS Appellants argue Marko does not disclose the ammonia granulated storage material can or should be compressed, much less to a bulk density above 70% of its skeleton density. App. Br. 7-8, 10. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately explained how or why Marko alone would have guided one skilled in the art to compress the disclosed granulated material to the claimed bulk density prior to use in treating a waste gas. Ans. 3--4. The Examiner has not relied upon Pfister to remedy the deficiencies of Marko in this regard. Accordingly, the Examiner's Â§ 103 rejections are reversed essentially for the reasons given by Appellants. We note that Fulks (Fulks, G., Fisher, G., Rahmoeller, K., Wu, M. et al., A Review of Solid Materials as Alternative Ammonia Sources for Lean NOx Reduction with SCR, SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-0907, 2009, doi:l0.4271/2009-01-0907) was submitted by Appellants on January 28, 2014 as part of a response to the Examiner's Non-Final Action of October 29, 2013. 1 Fulks discloses catalytic NOx reduction in exhaust gases with ammonia, where gaseous ammonia is made by heating a solid storage medium, such as Sr(NH3 )sCb which meets the claimed chemical formula. Fulks 1, 6. Fulks discloses the use of a solid storage medium that is compacted by applying a force over a piston to the powdered material to achieve a desired bulk density. Fulks 1, 9, 10. That is, Fulks discloses compacted solid medium as a source for ammonia to treat exhaust gases. Fuchs however does not expressly disclose compressing the granule storage 1 This reference is not paginated. When referring to this reference in our opinion, we apply the pagination starting with the title page as page 1. 3 Appeal2015-006012 Application 13/777,175 medium to a specific bulk density as required by claims 1, 5, and 6. Moreover the Examiner did not rely upon Fulks and we decline to do so here. The Board relies on the involved parties to focus the issues and decides those issues based on facts and arguments presented by the involved parties. See Ex Parte Frye, 293 F. 1013 (BPAI 2010 (precedential)). While the Board is authorized to enter a new ground of rejection, this authority is discretionary. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.77(b). We leave it to Examiner to consider the obviousness of the claims in light of Fuchs. ORDER We reverse the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejections. REVERSED 4