Ex Parte EliasonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201713080880 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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. 13/080,880 04/06/2011 Keith Eliason ECOQUIPl.US 2753 129507 7590 08/31/2017 Pike TP T aw PT T C EXAMINER P.O. Box 8592 CARLSON, MARC Richmond, VA 23226 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2017 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 KEITH ELIASON Appeal 2016-000961 Application 13/080,880 Technology Center 3700 Before: JOHN C. KERINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1 3, 5—8, and 10—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-000961 Application 13/080,880 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a wet abrasive blasting system and method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A wet abrasive blasting system, comprising: a mixer combining a slurry stream and a pressurized gas stream to form a three phase blasting stream; slurry piping system that connects a source of pressurized slurry to the mixer, wherein the slurry piping system comprises pipes and other components; and pressurized gas piping system that connects a source of pressurized gas to the mixer, wherein the pressurized gas piping system comprising comprises pipes, an air regulator and check valve; wherein a portion of the pipe has an internal cross- sectional flow area and the air regulator and the check valve have [ ] a minimum orifice internal cross-sectional flow area that is greater than 25% less than the internal cross-sectional flow area of the pipe. Br. 15 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Glaser US 5,404,904 Apr. 11, 1995 Nicholson WO 00/51787 Sept. 8,2000 Hank van Ormer, Don van Ormer, and Scott van Ormer, Compressed Air Systems: The Secret is in the Pipe, Mar. 14, 2005 (herein “van Ormer”). http://www.chemicalprocessing.com/articles/2005/12/?start=() (last visited Aug. 29, 2017). JohnD. Constancq, Finding Equivalent Pipe Lengths . . . Of Valves, section changes, and miter bends, Technical Information Bulletin, Number 30, Peerless Pump Company (Revised May 2006) (herein “Constance”). 2 Appeal 2016-000961 Application 13/080,880 http://www.peerlessxnet.com/documents/tibs/TIB-30_FINDING- EQUIVALENT-PIPE-LENGTHS.pdf (last visited Aug. 29, 2017). REJECTIONS (I) Claims 1—3 and 11—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nicholson, van Ormer, and Constance. (II) Claims 5—8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nicholson, van Ormer, Constance, and Glaser. OPINION Rejection (I); claims 1—3 and 11—14 The Examiner finds that Nicholson discloses most of the features recited in claim 1, and the Examiner identifies control handle 25 and associated structure as corresponding to the recited “mixer.” Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner finds that Nicholson “does not specifically mention the sizing of pipe, valves, or air regulator.” Final Act. 4. Nonetheless, the Examiner determines (i) that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of these components in accordance with the requirements of claim 1 and (ii) in light of the teachings of van Ormer and Constance, it would have been a matter of routine optimization to provide components within the range of cross-section sizes recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4—5. Appellant contends that control handle 25 of Nicholson does not correspond to the mixer recited in claim 1 because it is merely a “dead- man’s” control handle, and Nicholson provides a mixer at another location (the junction of line 17 and outlet 6). Br. 5. 3 Appeal 2016-000961 Application 13/080,880 In response, the Examiner finds that Nicholson discloses combining a slurry and a pressurized gas stream at many locations, one of which locations is the junction of line 17 and outlet 6, another of which is associated with control handle 25 (although not the handle itself). Ans. 14. In this regard, the Examiner states: Figure 1 clearly shows piping from both the slurry supply vessel 1 and the pressurized air from line 26 combining at the location generally identified as the control handle. Figure 2 schematically shows the connection of the pressurized air from line 26 to the control handle 25. Therefore, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that the pressurized air and slurry stream are combined at the location generally labelled the control handle 25 where it is then expelled through nozzle 20. Ans. 14 (emphasis added). Thus, based on Figures 1 and 2, the Examiner finds that slurry and pressurized air combine in the area near control handle 25. A preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding on this point. As the Examiner correctly finds, Figure 1 of Nicholson depicts piping (hose 19) extending from slurry supply vessel 1 and pressurized air line 26 converging at the location generally identified by control handle 25. See Ans. 14. However, there is no indication, in Figure 2 or the description thereof, that air passes from pressurized air line 26 to hose 19 in the area near handle 25. In other words, although air line 26 is shown in close proximity with hose 19, there is no indication in Nicholson that that line 26 and hose 19 are in fluid communication with each other in this location. Instead, Nicholson describes using handle 25 to control pressure in the system, specifically, to control valve 15 as follows: 4 Appeal 2016-000961 Application 13/080,880 When the operative wishes to commence blasting, he closes or partially closes the control handle 25 and as a result increases the air pressure in the sensing line 44. This causes the control valve 15 to open thus pressurizing the pipe 16 and the main delivery line 17 through valve 18. Air is now being blasted through the nozzle 20. The air pressure in the pipe 16 causes the air lock valve 8 to close to that it seals the inlet 4. The interior of the vessel 1 then becomes pressurized by the air flowing out of the pipe 16. At the same time, the bush 39 is raised from its seating 40 to open the outlet 6 and permit the blasting mixture to flow out of the vessel 1 and be entrained in the air flow along the hose 19. Nicholson, 12:2—14 (emphases added). Thus, control valve 15 opens as a result of operation of handle 25. The opening of control valve 15 leads to increased air pressure in pipe 17, and therefore, as shown in Figure 1 of Nicholson, increased air pressure in hose 19 where slurry is received from outlet 6. The Examiner refers to the last paragraph of page 11 of Nicholson, along with the portion of page 12 of Nicholson quoted above (Ans. 14—15), and concludes: during operation pressurized air is initially combined and mixed at the pressurized air delivery line 17 and the outlet 6 of the vessel 1 it then continues to be mixed along the path of hose 19 where it continues to be mixed up to the control handle 25. At that point additional air is introduced into the line (Air is now being blasted through the nozzle 20) and is blasted through the nozzle. Ans. 15 (italics added). Although we appreciate that operation of handle 25 ultimately results in air being blasted through nozzle 20, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that “additional air is introduced into the line” in the area of handle 25. Id. Rather, pages 11 and 12 of Nicholson instead support a finding that the air blasted through nozzle 5 Appeal 2016-000961 Application 13/080,880 20 originated from valve 15. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 3, and 11—14 depending therefrom because the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Nicholson, van Ormer, and Constance is based on an unsupported finding of fact. Rejection (II); claims 5—8 and 10 Claims 5—8 depend from claim 1, and the Examiner does not rely on Glaser in any way that would remedy the deficiency discussed above regarding Rejection (I). See Final Act. 7—9. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5—8 as unpatentable over Nicholson, van Ormer, Constance, and Glaser. Independent claim 10 recites, in part, “a mixer; a check valve; and [a] piping system connecting the check valve to the mixer.” Br. 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner again relies on the area near handle 25 of Nicholson as a disclosure of a mixer. See Final Act. 9. For the same reasons discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 1, we reverse the rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Nicholson, van Ormer, Constance, and Glaser. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 5—8, and 10—14 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
