Ex Parte L¿rken et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 201612296389 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation