Ex Parte Gaid

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2012

12088501 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
12/088,501 05/21/2008 Abdelkader Gaid 4195-052/R11394US/DLR-ABA 1819
24112 7590 12/27/2012
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, DENISE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1779
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2012 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 ABDELKADER GAID
__________

Appeal 2011-013635
Application 12/088,501
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before RICHARD TORCZON, PETER F. KRATZ, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013635
Application 12/088,501

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
23-31, and 39. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s invention is directed to water treatment methods including
a step of liquid-solid separation and at least one filtration step (Spec. 1:1-4).
Claim 39 is illustrative:
39. A method of treating water, comprising:
directing the water to a flotation system;
mixing a coagulant with the water;
mixing a flocculent with the water;
wherein mixing the coagulant and flocculent with the
water forms flocs in the water;
separating the floc from water at a speed greater than 15
m/h in the flotation system such that the floc are directed to the
surface of the water and an effluent liquid is produced;
filtering the effluent liquid with one or more micro-
filtration membranes or ultrafiltration membranes and
producing filtered water; and
directing the filtered water to a reverse osmosis unit or a
nano-filtration membrane and subjecting the filtered water to
filtration by the reverse osmosis unit or the nano-filtration
membrane.

Appeal 2011-013635
Application 12/088,501

3
Appellant requests review of all of the appealed claims on the basis
of arguments made against the following rejection (App. Br. 2, 3, and 10):
Claims 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
being unpatentable over Komatsu (US 2002/0011443 A1 published Jan. 31,
2002) in view of Cote (US 5,932,099 issued Aug. 3, 1999) and Al-Samadi
(US 5,501,798 issued Mar. 26, 1996).

Appellant argues the subject matter of claims 23, 31, and 39 only (App.
Br. 5-9). For reasons evident below, we focus on the subject matter of
independent claims 23 and 39 only.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that a settling rate is an inherent
property of the claimed water treating composition such that the composition
of Komatsu or Cote would have necessarily provided a floc settling or
floating to the surface at a settling rate or separating speed greater than 15
m/h as recited in claims 23 and 39? We decide this issue in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established that the water
treating composition of Komatsu or Cote inherently provide floc settling at a
rate (or separation speed) of greater than 15 m/h (App. Br. 6-7). Appellant
argues that the Examiner’s presumption that the floc properties alone
determine the settling rate is incorrect as the settling rate is also based upon
the flow rate and area of the settling tank (Reply Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-013635
Application 12/088,501

4
The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellant’s argument of
nonobviousness. The Examiner’s sole basis for finding that Komatsu or
Cote discloses the claimed settling rate is based upon the patents teaching
the same water treating composition as claimed (Ans. 9, 17, 21, 23).
However, the settling speed is not solely dependent upon the water treating
composition or floc properties as argued by Appellant. Rather, the rate is
determined by the flow rate of the water through the settling tank and the
area of the settling tank, too. Indeed, Komatsu at paragraph 7 discloses that
the rate of water flow in a filtration device is calculated based upon the flow
rate per unit area of the filter.
As the Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Komatsu or
Cote that teaches the same or similar flow rates, settling tank areas or other
variables other than the water treatment composition as those disclosed by
Appellant, we find that the Examiner has not provided sufficient technical
reasoning to establish a prima facie case of inherency with regard to the
disputed claim feature . On this record, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Komatsu in view of Cote and Al-Samadi.
All of the separately rejected claims 25,26, 28, and 29 depend on
independent claim 23 and include the same combination of prior art which is
the basis of the § 103 of claim 23 with the Allen reference added to address
limitations specific to claims 25, 26, 28, and 29. Thus, we reverse the § 103
rejection of the latter claims over Komatsu in view of Cote, Al-Samadi, and
Allen for the same reasons noted above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
Appeal 2011-013635
Application 12/088,501

5

ORDER
REVERSED