Ex Parte HeckerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201412116545 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EUGENE HECKER ____________ Appeal 2012-006219 Application 12/116,545 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-006219 Application 12/116,545 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to filtration systems for filtration of gas by spraying liquid. Spec. [0002]. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A filtration system for filtering gas, comprising: a) a liquid pump, configured to pump liquid; b) a spray nozzle, in fluid communication with the liquid pump, configured to spray liquid on a gas stream of a smoke stack; c) a liquid collection basin, disposed near the spray nozzle, configured to collect liquid after spraying on a gas stream of a smoke stack; wherein the liquid collection basin is a continuous trough and is disposed around a perimeter of the spray nozzle; and d) a liquid filter, in fluid communication with the liquid collection basin, configured to filter particles from the liquid after spraying on a gas stream of a smoke stack. 14. A filtration system for filtering gas, comprising: a) a liquid pump, configured to pump liquid; b) a spray nozzle, in fluid communication with the liquid pump configured to spray liquid on a gas stream; c) a continuous donut-shaped trough liquid collection basin, disposed near the spray nozzle, configured to collect liquid after spraying on a gas stream; and d) a liquid filter, in fluid communication with the liquid collection basin, configured to filter particles from the liquid after spraying on a gas stream; wherein the liquid filter includes: Appeal 2012-006219 Application 12/116,545 3 d1) a plurality of chambers separated by partitions; d2) a pipe for input of liquid; and d3) a plurality of spouts configured to drain each chamber. 20. A filtration system for filtering gas, comprising: a) a liquid pump, configured to pump liquid; b) a spray nozzle, in fluid communication with the liquid pump and disposed outside of and over the top of a smoke stack, configured to spray liquid on a gas stream of the smoke stack; wherein the spray nozzle is configured to spray horizontally; c) a liquid collection basin, disposed near the spray nozzle, configured to collect liquid after spraying on a gas stream of the smoke stack and shaped as a continuous donut-shaped trough; d) a plurality of condensation drips disposed along a top of the liquid filter configured to condense any liquid which may evaporate during filtration and returns the condensed liquid to the chambers for filtration; wherein the system is a closed system, enabling liquid to be recycled throughout the system; and e) a liquid filter, in fluid communication with the liquid collection basin, configured to filter particles from the liquid after spraying on a gas stream; wherein the liquid filter includes: e1) a plurality of chambers separated by partitions; wherein the partitions are solid providing only an opening at the top of the plurality of chambers; e2) a pipe for input of liquid; and e3) a plurality of spouts configured to drain each chamber. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Schiemichen U.S. 3,962,877 June 15, 1976 Ewan et al. U.S. 4,141,701 Feb. 27, 1979 Sung U.S. 5,240,482 Aug. 31, 1993 Evans U.S. 5,492,620 Feb. 20, 1996 Leoncavallo U.S. 2003/0106609 A1 June 12, 2003 Feher U.S. 2008/0098890 A1 May 1, 2008 Appeal 2012-006219 Application 12/116,545 4 Cummins U.S. 2009/0127176 A1 May 21, 2009 REJECTIONS The following grounds1 of rejection are before us on appeal: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Feher. Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feher. Claims 11, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feher in view of Evans evidenced by Cummins. Claims 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feher in view of Evans further in view of Leoncavallo, evidenced by Schiemichen. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sung. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Ewan. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, and 13 as being anticipated by Feher In order for the Examiner to carry the burden to establish a prima facie case of anticipation, the Examiner must establish where each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claim, is found 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 4. App App in a inher “Fig emb Id. a the c arou ordin eal 2012-0 lication 12 single prio ency. See Figure 2 ure 2 is a f odiment of A gas strea basin 18 configur example collectio directing collectio perimete t 15 [0017 laimed “li nd a perim ary skill i 06219 /116,545 r art refere In re Sch from the S ront persp the inven s shown, th m, which . As illust ed to colle , one skille n basin 18 liquid for n basin 18 r of the sp ]. Therefo quid collec eter of the n the art at nce, eithe reiber, 128 pecificati ective view tion.” Spe e spray n liquid is th rated, the ct liquid a d in the a may be a filtration. is continu ray nozzle re, the Spe tion basin spray noz the time o 5 r expressly F.3d 147 on is set fo of a filtr c. 10 [001 ozzle 16 sp en collect liquid coll fter sprayi rt would ap trough for In additio ous and is 16. cification is a contin zle,” and, f the inve or under 3, 1477 (F rth below ation syste 3]. The S rays liqui ed in a liqu ection basi ng on a ga preciate t collecting n, the illu disposed teaches th uous trou as Appella ntion[] wo the princip ed. Cir. 19 : m accordi pecificatio d through id collect n 18 is s stream. hat the liq liquid an strated liq around a at Figure gh and is d nt notes, “ uld have les of 97). ng to one n states: a ion For uid d/or uid 2 shows isposed one of Appeal 2012-006219 Application 12/116,545 6 comprehended that the phrase ‘around a perimeter of the spray nozzle’, after reviewing Appellant’s Specification and Drawings, would mean circumscribing.” Reply Br. 12-13. When the claim language is read in light of the Specification, claim 1 requires that the liquid collection basin be a continuous trough that circumscribes the perimeter of the spray nozzle. In order to anticipate the claims, Feher must disclose a filtration system that has a continuous trough that circumscribes the perimeter of the spray nozzle. See, e.g., Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.”). The Examiner finds that Feher discloses all of the elements of claim 1. Ans. 5-7 and 17-18. The Examiner finds that “[t]here are two liquid collection basins underneath the spray nozzles” and “[e]ach liquid basin is disposed around a perimeter of the lowest spray nozzle of the set.” Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds that “the liquid collection place (not numbered) of [Feher] reads on the continuous trough because only one outlet from the bottom of basin and such figure of liquid collection basin is a general shape for a trough as well known in ordinary skills of the art.” Id. at 18. Appellant responds that “Feher does not teach [or] illustrate a liquid collection basin that is a ‘continuous trough … disposed around a perimeter of the spray nozzle,’” and that “the collection structure of Feher is not even described.” App. Br. 19. App App engin emb Figu desc stage Id. a creat aggr eal 2012-0 lication 12 Feher di e. Feher odiment of re 1 is a sc ribed in Fe spray arr t [0014]. F es a spray egate, “cre Th water re stage spr return w 160 may 06219 /116,545 scloses an [0001]. F the Feher hematic v her. Fehe ay 110” th eher furth pattern 12 ate a wate e inlet air circulation ay array 1 ater well 1 be treated inlet air an igure 1, rep invention iew of the r discloses at “include er disclos 5 in the fo r curtain e chilling fi system 15 10 may be 60. The w to remov 7 d filtratio roduced b : inlet air ch that “[t]h s a numbe es that “[e] rm of inve ffect.” Id. ltration sy 0. The w collected ater from e contamin n system f elow, disc illing and e system 1 r of spray ach spray rted doub Feher tea stem 100 m ater used i and maint the return ants there or a gas tu loses one filtration 00 include nozzle pa nozzle pa le cones” t ches: ay includ n the first ained in a water wel in in a wa rbine system s a first irs 120.” ir 120 hat, in e a l ter Appeal 2012-006219 Application 12/116,545 8 treatment apparatus 170. The water treatment apparatus 170 may be of conventional design. Id. at [0017]. Other than what can be seen in the figures, Feher does not provide any details with respect to the structure used to collect the water prior to treatment. As shown in Figure 1, the area the Examiner identified as the liquid collection basin is perpendicular to and below the bottom pair of spray nozzles. The Examiner has not explained how this configuration satisfies the limitation “disposed around a perimeter of the spray nozzle” recited in the claims. For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not carried the burden to establish that Feher describes a filtration system upon which claim 1 reads. The Examiner does not identify a liquid collection basin that is a continuous trough and is disposed around a perimeter of the spray nozzle among the disclosures in Feher. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10, and 13 as anticipated by Feher. The rejection of claims 3 and 8 as being obvious over Feher The Examiner concludes that claims 3 and 8 are obvious over Feher. Ans. 8. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection fails to cure the deficiencies identified above in the anticipation rejection. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 8 as being obvious over Feher. The rejection of claims 11, 14-17, and 19 as being obvious over Feher in view of Evans evidenced by Cummins The Examiner concludes that claims 11, 14-17, and 19 are obvious over Feher in view of Evans evidenced by Cummins. Ans. 8-11. In reaching this conclusion, the Examiner relies on the disclosures of Feher as applied to the anticipation rejection of claim 1. The Examiner’s obviousness App App rejec rejec claim evid Fehe Schi on th The abov Exam view Figu inven eal 2012-0 lication 12 tion fails t tion of cla s 11, 14-1 enced by C furth The Exa r in view o emichen. e disclosu Examiner’ e in the an iner’s rej of Evans Sung dis re 2, repro tion: 06219 /116,545 o cure the im 1. The 7, and 19 ummins. The r as being er in view miner con f Evans fu Ans. 11-13 res of Feh s obviousn ticipation ection of c further in The r a closes a sc duced belo deficienci refore, we as being o ejection of obvious ov of Leonca cludes that rther in v . In reach er as appli ess reject rejection o laims 12, view of Le ejection of s being an rubbing a w, disclos 9 es identifi reverse th bvious ov claims 12 er Feher i vallo, evid claims 12 iew of Leo ing this co ed to the a ion fails to f claim 1. 18, and 20 oncavallo claims 1, ticipated b pparatus fo es one em ed above i e Examin er Feher in , 18, and 2 n view of E enced by S , 18, and 2 ncavallo, nclusion, nticipation cure the d Therefor as being o , evidence 3, 5, and y Sung r purifyin bodiment n the antic er’s rejecti view of E 0 vans chiemiche 0 are obv evidenced the Exam rejection eficiencie e, we reve bvious ov d by Schie 8 g effluent of the Sun ipation on of vans n ious over by iner relies of claim 1 s identifie rse the er Feher in michen. gas. Sung g . d Appeal 2012-006219 Application 12/116,545 10 Figure 2 is a cross-sectional view of the shower tunnel-type scrubbing apparatus disclosed in Sung. Sung discloses a scrubbing apparatus that generally includes “[a] plurality of ring-like branch pipes 1A” that “are equidistantly mounted on the inner peripherals of the first cylindrical exhaust pipe 10A.” Sung, col. 2, ll. 37-41. Sung further discloses that the branch pipes are “threaded with nozzles 12N [ ] so that the angle of the shower spray is concentrated on the center of the first cylindrical exhaust pipe 10A.” Id. at ll. 45-51. Sung teaches that “[w]ater is supplied from the supply pipe 3 to the distribution pipe 2A and then branch pipes 1A, concentrically sprayed by the nozzles 12N, and returned to the pump 40 via a drain pipe D mounted on the bottom of the first exhaust pipe 10A, a water tank 30 and a filter F.” Id. at ll. 55-60. Sung further teaches: A subsided reservoir 22 is formed on the lower portion of the discharging duct 20 so as to be connected to a water tank 30 via a drain pipe D. And then, water is circulated via a filter F, a pump 40, the supply pipe 3, the distribution pipe 2A, and the ring-like branch pipes 1A and concentrically sprayed by the nozzles 12N. Id. at col. 3, ll. 7-12. The Examiner finds that Sung discloses all of the elements of claim 1. Ans. 14-15 and 21. The Examiner finds that the limitation “the liquid collection basin is a continuous trough and is disposed around a perimeter of the spray nozzle” is met by Sung’s disclosure of “subsided reservoir 22 (liquid collection basin), bottom of the cylindrical pipe which is drained by drainage pipe D, D’ (continuous liquid collection basin along a perimeter bottom spray nozzle) in figure 2.” Id. at 14. The Examiner further finds that “[t]he subsided reservoir 22 reads on continuous trough as claimed.” Id. Appeal 2012-006219 Application 12/116,545 11 Appellant responds that “the illustrated collection basin (22) is disposed remotely from the spray nozzles and remotely from the perimeter of each.” App. Br. 32. Appellant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, would have comprehended the phrase ‘around a perimeter of the spray nozzle’, after reviewing the Appellant’s Specification and Drawings, would mean circumscribing.” Reply Br. 13. Appellant’s arguments are supported by the record. The Examiner does not identify “a liquid collection basin . . . wherein the liquid collection basin is a continuous trough and is disposed around a perimeter of the spray nozzle” among the disclosures in Sung. Sung’s subsided reservoir is not disposed around a perimeter of the spray nozzle as is recited in claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 5, and 8 that depend therefrom, as anticipated by Sung. The rejection of claim 9 as being obvious over Sung in view of Ewan The Examiner concludes that claim 9 is obvious over Sung in view of Ewan. Ans. 16. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection fails to cure the deficiencies identified above in the anticipation rejection. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as being obvious over Sung in view of Ewan. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Feher is reversed. The rejection of claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feher is reversed. Appeal 2012-006219 Application 12/116,545 12 The rejection of claims 11, 14-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feher in view of Evans evidenced by Cummins is reversed. The rejection of claims 12, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feher in view of Evans further in view of Leoncavallo, evidenced by Schiemichen is reversed. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sung is reversed. The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Ewan is reversed. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is REVERSED. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation