Ex Parte L¿rken et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2016

12296389 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/296,389 01/26/2009
40582 7590
American Air Liquide, Inc,
Intellectual Property Dept.
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
03/10/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Serie 7155 7129
EXAMINER
CRENSHAW, HENRY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
IP-USOffice@airliquide.com
Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com
J us tin.Murray@airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANZ LURKEN, HELMUT HENRICH,
and REINHARD KOST
Appeal2013-008294
Application 12/296,389
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL L. WOODS,
and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Franz Liirken et al. ("Appellants") seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 14--18 and 27-34. Appeal Br. 3.
Claims 1-13 and 19-26 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-008294
Application 12/296,389
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention "relates to a method ... for generating a
positive pressure in a tank for liquefied gas." Spec. 1, 11. 7-9. Claim 14 is
the sole independent claim and is reproduced below.
14. A method for generating a positive pressure in a tank
for liquefied gas on a refrigerated vehicle with an evaporator for
the liquefied gas, in conjunction with which the evaporator is
connected in a fluid-conducting fashion to the tank via a line for
liquefied gas, and in conjunction with which a valve is arranged
in the line, comprising the following method steps:
opening the valve so that liquefied gas exits from the tank
and into the line;
allowing at least some of the liquefied gas in the line to
enter the evaporator;
blowing air across the evaporator to chill the air;
directing the chilled air into a refrigerated chamber of the
vehicle that contains goods to be chilled;
closing the valve, in conjunction with which a quantity of
the liquefied gas remains in the line and is able to flow back into
the tank;
heating the quantity in the line.
Appeal Br. 11, Claims App.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 14, 15, 18, 32, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Miller (GB 2,275,098 A, published Aug. 17,
1994) and Martin (US 5,199,275, issued Apr. 6, 1993). 1 Ans. 2.
1 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 14, 15, 18, 32, and
34 as anticipated by Miller or, in the alternative, as unpatentable over Miller
and Martin. Final Act. 3. In the Answer, however, the Examiner withdraws
the rejection of these claims as anticipated by Miller. Ans. 2. Thus, our
decision only considers the unpatentable rejection over Miller and Martin.
2
Appeal2013-008294
Application 12/296,389
IL Claims 16, 17, and 27-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Miller, Martin, and Miller US (US 5,169,031,
issued Dec. 8, 1992). Ans. 5.
III. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Miller, Martin, and Thuesen (US 4,966,006, issued Oct.
30, 1990). Ans. 6.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I: Claims 14, 15, 18, 32, and 34 as Unpatentable
In rejecting independent claim 14, and its dependent claims 15, 18,
32, and 34, the Examiner finds that Miller teaches, generally, the claimed
method for generating a positive pressure in tank 5 03, including evaporator
506 for chilling air. Ans. 2 (citing Miller, Fig. 6).
Figure 6 of Miller is reproduced below:
Figure 6 depicts a pressure-regulating system, including vessel 503,
filled with liquid nitrogen, and with pressure sensor 5 09 set to open and
close valve 508, thereby allowing some liquid nitrogen to exit vessel 503 to
vaporize within evaporator 506 and into pipe 507, thereby controlling the
pressure of nitrogen in vessel 503. Miller, p. 6, 1. 27-p. 7, 1. 19.
3
Appeal2013-008294
Application 12/296,389
The Examiner acknowledges that Miller does not disclose the steps of
"blow[ing] air across the evaporator" and "direct[ing] [the chilled air] into
[a] refrigerated chamber," and instead concludes that it would have been
obvious to "utilize the evaporator in the pressure building circuit as one of
the evaporators for cooling [Miller's refrigerated chambers], the motivation
being to utilize an otherwise wasted source of cooled air." Ans. 3--4. In
relying on Martin, and to ensure "pressure building operation" within the
modified system, the Examiner further proposes to "provide a heater on the
pressure building line, as taught by Martin ... to prevent freezing of the
nitrogen or an unacceptable pressure drop in the nitrogen," and concludes
that this further modification would have also been obvious. Id. at 4 (citing
Martin, Abstract).
In contesting the rejection, Appellants first argue that modifying
Miller by adding a fan to "blow air across evaporator 506 in order to provide
chilled air to" one of Miller's refrigerated compartments "would have
fought/interfered with the reliable operation of the pressure-building circuit."
Appeal Br. 7. Appellants explain that the modification "would have resulted
in a poorly controlled process ... to defeat the reliable operation of the
pressure-building circuit disclosed by Miller." Reply Br. 6-7.
In response to Appellants' first argument, the Examiner acknowledges
that "given the multitude of the potential designs for the system," in the
event "there might be a configuration in which use of the evaporator ( 506) to
provide cooling to the container would interfere with the pressure building
circuit[, however,] the system could be further modified to include a heater
as taught by Martin, in order to prevent freezing or an unacceptable pressure
4
Appeal2013-008294
Application 12/296,389
drop."2 Ans. 13. In any case, the "Examiner does not agree that the
proposed modification to blow air over evaporator ( 506) will interfere with
the pressure building circuit." Id.
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed modification
of adding a heater downstream of Miller's evaporator 506 is also in error.
See Appeal Br. 8; see also Ans. 15 ("The Final Rejection of claim 1, page 4,
suggests adding a heater to the vapor line ( 507) downstream of the
evaporator (506) in order to prevent freezing or an unacceptable pressure
drop"). Appellants explain that Martin teaches heating carbon dioxide gas
exiting an evaporator, to prevent the lowered-pressure carbon dioxide from
forming a mixture of solid and gas that could clog the lines downstream of
the evaporator. Id. Appellants explain that unlike Martin's liquid carbon
dioxide, which "forms a biphasic mixture of solid and gas" upon exiting,
Miller's liquid nitrogen "vaporizes to mono-phasic gaseous nitrogen" upon
exiting an evaporator, and hence requires no downstream heater. Id.
In response to Appellants' second argument, the Examiner disagrees
with Appellants' assertion that liquid nitrogen "will not experience the same
solidification issues as" Martin's carbon dioxide system. Ans. 14. The
Examiner explains that adding Martin's heater downstream of Miller's
evaporator 506 will maintain "a cryogen in the state that it needs to be in in
order for the cryogenic system to function properly." Id. at 14--15.
Upon reviewing the record, the Examiner's proposed modification of
Miller is not supported by adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In
2 See supra note 1. The standing rejection relies on the teachings of Martin's
heater. Ans. 2--4; Final Act. 7.
5
Appeal2013-008294
Application 12/296,389
particular, the Examiner has not adequately reasoned why a skilled artisan
would add Martin's downstream heater for the purpose of preventing
freezing or avoiding unacceptable pressure drops in Miller's nitrogen-based
system.
Martin discloses a refrigeration system designed "to prevent
solidification of carbon dioxide" (Martin, col. 1, 11. 16-20) and states that
current "systems using carbon dioxide as a refrigerant have not enjoyed wide
spread commercial acceptance because of the tendency of carbon dioxide to
solidify and 'freeze-up' the system" (id. at col. 2, 11. 34--37 ). Accordingly,
Martin's refrigeration system is aimed at solving a problem unique to carbon
dioxide freezing, and we are not convinced that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would add Martin's heater to Miller's nitrogen refrigeration system,
as the Examiner has done, to either "prevent freezing" or avoid
"unacceptable pressure drops." See Ans. 4. The record does not support
these conclusions.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 14, and dependent claims 15, 18, 32, and 34.
Rejections II and III: Claims 16, 17, 27-31, and 33 as Unpatentable
In rejecting dependent claims 16, 1 7, and 2 7-31 under Rejection II,
and in rejecting dependent claim 33 under Rejection III, the Examiner relies
on the same unsupportable modification discussed supra, namely, that it
would have been obvious to add Martin's heater downstream of Miller's
evaporator. See Ans. 5-7. For the same reason that we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 14 under Rejection I, we do not sustain the
6
Appeal2013-008294
Application 12/296,389
rejection of dependent claims 16, 17, and 27-31 under Rejection 11, and we
do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 33 under Rejection III.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 14, 15, 18, 32, and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Miller and Martin is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 16, 17, and 27-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Miller, Martin, and Miller US is
reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Miller, Martin, and Thuesen is reversed.
REVERSED
7