Ex Parte Euston

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

12290972 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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. 12/290,972 11/04/2008 Charles R. Euston 5404-00110 4063 7590 12/18/2012 Daniel DeJoseph FLSmidth Inc. 2040 Avenue "C" Bethlehem, PA 18017 EXAMINER LEE, REBECCA Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2012 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 CHARLES R. EUSTON ____________ Appeal 2011-013151 Application 12/290,972 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A process for drying copper sulfide concentrates in preparation for smelting the dried copper concentrate in an oxygen enriched environment, the oxygen for which is supplied by an oxygen plant that generates waste nitrogen gas, the process comprising: A. introducing copper concentrates into a drying chamber; B. directing waste nitrogen gas from the oxygen plant to a heat treatment means for heating the nitrogen gas to temperatures suitable to dry the copper concentrates; Appeal 2011-013152 Application 12/290,972 2 C. mixing the heated nitrogen gas with the copper concentrate in the drying chamber to thereby dry the copper concentrates to a moisture content suitable for a smelter; and D. recovering the dried copper concentrates. The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of the appealed claims: Foley 2,783,141 Feb. 26, 1957 Worner 3,463,472 Aug. 26, 1969 Villarroel et al. 6,209,225 B1 Apr. 3, 2001 Wood et al. 6,270,555 B1 Aug. 7, 2001 Leahy et al. 7,271,201 B1 Sep. 18, 2007 Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a process for drying copper sulfide concentrates by mixing heated nitrogen gas with the concentrates in a drying chamber to a moisture content suitable for a smelter. According to Appellant, by using heated nitrogen gas rather than oxygen, the possibility of combustion in the dryer is eliminated and “it enables the copper concentrate drying process to be conducted at temperatures significantly above the copper concentrate ignition temperature” (Br. 5, third para.). Appealed claims 1 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Villarroel. The claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: (a) claims 2, 3, and 15 over Villarroel in view of Foley, (b) claims 5 and 6 over Villarroel in view of Worner, (c) claims 7 and 8 over Villarroel in view of Wood, and Appeal 2011-013152 Application 12/290,972 3 (d) claims 9-13, 16, and 17 over Villarroel in view of Leahy and Foley. We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer, and we add the following for emphasis only. We consider first the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 14 over Villarroel. There is no dispute that Villarroel, like Appellant, discloses a process for drying copper sulfide concentrates using heated nitrogen gas generated in oxygen plants. The principal argument advanced by Appellant is that Villarroel employs nitrogen gas in an indirect heating process wherein the nitrogen gas is inserted into tubular holes 2 which, in turn, heat adjacent heat transfer bars 3. Appellant submits that the Examiner has been unable to show a specific teaching in Villarroel for the claimed step of mixing the heated nitrogen gas with the copper concentrate. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it fails to address the thrust of the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner cites the following portion of Villarroel for a disclosure of directly mixing heated nitrogen gas with the copper concentrate: Although there is more than one possible operating way for the dryer, the simpler one seems to be that where the concentrate and the hot nitrogen are fed by the top entrance mouth; while the dry concentrate and the exhaust water vapor are recovered at the bottom end of the dryer. In this case it is also advantageous to introduce a small flow of hot nitrogen at the entrance mouth, in order to promote the evacuation of the evaporated water inside the dryer. (col. 3, ll. 17-25). Appeal 2011-013152 Application 12/290,972 4 We note that Appellant has presented no argument to rebut the Examiner’s position which was presented in the Final Rejection in response to Appellant’s amendment to the claims. As for the Examiner’s rejections of the dependent claims under § 103, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as set forth in the Answer. Appellant has not persuaded us that the use of various, conventional apparatus for drying copper sulfide concentrates, at the specified temperatures and oxygen concentrations, would have been nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results. In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED cam