Ex Parte Miebach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2017

13140264 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 13/140,264 06/16/2011 Rolf Miebach 5041.1017 6748 23280 7590 03/30/2017 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 589 8th Avenue 16th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER TRAN, DIEM T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3748 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2017 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): ddk @ ddkpatent .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROLF MIEBACH, STEPHAN SCHRAML, PETER BROLL, and DIRK SCHLUETER Appeal 2015-005125 Application 13/140,264 Technology Center 3700 Before: ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 29-44, 47, 48, and 50—55.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The rejections of claims 45, 46, 49, and 56 were withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 2. Appeal 2015-005125 Application 13/140,264 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a vaporizer and related method of operation, with claims 29 and 42 being independent. Claim 29, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 29. A vaporizer device working together with an exhaust pipe carrying a process exhaust gas, the vaporizer device comprising: a burner with a supply device for combustible fuel and air, a combustion chamber downstream of the supply device for combusting the combustible fuel and outputting a burner exhaust, and an exhaust duct downstream of the combustion chamber including an outlet port opening into the exhaust pipe such that the burner exhaust exits the outlet port, enters the exhaust pipe and converges and mixes with the process exhaust gas in the exhaust pipe; an introducer for introducing a vaporizable liquid in the exhaust duct upstream of the outlet port such that the vaporizable liquid is vaporized in the exhaust duct by the burner exhaust to form a vapor; and an exhaust gas aftertreatment device in the exhaust pipe downstream from the outlet port of the exhaust duct receiving a mixture of the burner exhaust, the vapor and the process exhaust gas. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on REFERENCES appeal is: Barber Brighton Blaschke Webb US 3,884,037 May 20, 1975 US 4,651,524 Mar. 24, 1987 US 5,826,428 Oct. 27, 1998 US 7,032,376 B1 Apr. 25, 2006 2 Appeal 2015-005125 Application 13/140,264 REJECTIONS I. Claims 29—31, 34—36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 48, 51—53, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Blaschke. II. Claims 32 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blaschke. III. Claims 33, 37, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blaschke and Brighton. IV. Claims 40, 41, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blaschke and Webb. V. Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blaschke and Barber. OPINION Rejection I Appellants argue that Blaschke does not anticipate claim 29 as it “does not disclose ‘ [a] vaporizer device working together with an exhaust pipe carrying a process exhaust gas’ including ‘an exhaust duct downstream of the combustion chamber including an outlet port opening into the exhaust pipe such that the burner exhaust exits the outlet port, enters the exhaust pipe and converges and mixes with the process exhaust gas in the exhaust nine.’” Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 5. Appellants explain that “[i]n Blaschke, the burner exhaust output from combustion chamber 5 converges and mixes with all of the process exhaust gas and the fuel from second fuel supply 14 in the area upstream of baffle 17. which is clearly upstream of the annular portion outside of baffle 17” {id. 3 Appeal 2015-005125 Application 13/140,264 at 6 (citing Blaschke, col. 8:3—7)), where the Examiner found the claimed “outlet port” to be “the area between the end of baffle 17 and [the] wall of the exhaust pipe” in Blaschke with the claimed “exhaust pipe” being downstream of this location (Adv. Act. 2). Appellants further explain: “in Blaschke, the burner exhaust output from combustion chamber 5 does not exit the annular portion outside of baffle 17, enter an exhaust pipe and converge and mix with the process exhaust gas in the exhaust pipe as asserted by the Examiner because the burner exhaust output from combustion chamber 5 and all of the process exhaust gas already converged and were mixed together and ignited in the so-called main combustion chamber behind the first flame retention baffle 17.” Appeal Br. 7 (bolding omitted). The Examiner disagrees, stating that the claimed invention is taught by Blaschke, but that the features Appellants’ argue are not claimed. Ans. 2—3. This is because it is not necessary for “the burner exhaust [to] converge[] and mix[] with the process exhaust gas . . . only after the outlet port.” Id. at 3. In so stating, the Examiner appears to be reading the term “converges” out of the claim. In Blaschke, three different gases appear to converge and mix between the fuel and air supply openings 16 and the baffle 17. Blaschke, col. 7:7—11, 7:45—55, and 8:3—7, and Fig. 1. These three gases are first (1) the exhaust “A” flowing in the exhaust pipe which passes through exhaust gas-swirling means 9 immediately before reaching the openings 16, second (2) the burner exhaust leaving the combustion chamber 5 and entering the exhaust pipe, and third (3) the fuel and air injected by the fuel and air supply 14 at opening 16. Id. Blaschke further teaches that these gases are swirled together and ignited “behind [i.e., upstream of] the first flame retention baffle 17.” Id. at col. 8:3—7. Thus, it is unclear how the 4 Appeal 2015-005125 Application 13/140,264 different gases could re-converge again at a later point downstream of the baffle 17 when they have already been thoroughly mixed together and are being combusted. Thus, the Examiner has not shown how Blaschke teaches ‘“[a] vaporizer device working together with an exhaust pipe carrying a process exhaust gas’ including ‘an exhaust duct downstream of the combustion chamber including an outlet port opening into the exhaust pipe such that the burner exhaust exits the outlet port, enters the exhaust pipe and converges and mixes with the process exhaust gas in the exhaust nine’” of claim 29, or the similar limitation in independent claim 42. Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 5. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29—31, 34—36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 48, 51—53, and 55 as anticipated by Blaschke. Rejections II- V The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 32, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, 50, and 54 are based on the same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to independent claim 29. See Final Act. 4—8. The Examiner does not rely on Brighton, Webb, or Barber to remedy the deficiencies of Blaschke. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claims 29 and 42, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 29-44, 47, 48, and 50-55 are reversed. 5 Appeal 2015-005125 Application 13/140,264 REVERSED 6