Ex Parte Hecker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2014

12116545 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

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