Ex Parte Powell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 2013

11652890 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/652,890 01/12/2007 Duane J Powell PowellUS24BNP 4969 25287 7590 05/30/2013 GEORGE LAWRENCE BOLLER SUITE 7 17199 N LAUREL PARK DR LIVONIA, MI 48152 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DUANE J. POWELL, ROBERT B. BEBOW, and BRENT J. HARDMAN ____________ Appeal 2012-000813 Application 11/652,890 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before DEBORAH KATZ, GEORGE C. BEST, and GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek relief from the final rejection of Claims 2-12 and 25- 26, which are directed to a method for continuously simultaneously manufacturing a higher-strength, lower-salt, aqueous sodium hypochlorite bleach product and a substantially dry crystalline salt product. We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-000813 Application 11/652,890 2 Claim 25 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 25. A method comprising: continuously simultaneously manufacturing both a higher-strength, lower-salt, aqueous sodium hypochlorite bleach product and a substantially dry crystalline salt product by continuously withdrawing a slurry from a first tank in which a continuous reaction is producing the slurry as a suspension of salt crystals in higher-strength aqueous sodium hypochlorite bleach by continuously introducing into the first tank 1) a lower-strength aqueous sodium hypochlorite bleach that has some sodium hydroxide and is essentially free of salt crystals, 2) an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution having a concentration by weight within a range from about 45% to about 51 %, 3) chlorine in gas and/or liquid phase that may or may not include inerts, and 4) a recycle solution comprising slurry continuously withdrawn from the tank at a level below where the lower-strength bleach, the sodium hydroxide solution, the chlorine, and the recycle solution begin to mix with slurry already in the tank; continuously withdrawing from the first tank, at a level below where the lower-strength aqueous sodium hypochlorite bleach, the aqueous sodium hydroxide solution, the chlorine, and the recycle solution begin to mix with slurry already in the tank, slurry that is to be further processed to yield the higher-strength, lower-salt, aqueous sodium hypochlorite bleach product and the substantially dry crystalline salt product; wherein the further processing comprises, continuously introducing the slurry withdrawn from the first tank into a second tank, agitating the slurry in the second tank, continuously withdrawing slurry from the second tank, continuously introducing the slurry withdrawn from the second tank into a thickening device, Appeal 2012-000813 Application 11/652,890 3 in the thickening device, extracting a substantial portion of liquid from the slurry as the higher-strength, lower-salt, aqueous sodium hypochlorite bleach product thereby leaving thickened wet salt, continuously withdrawing the thickened wet salt from the thickening device and, continuously introducing the thickened wet salt from the thickening device into a two-stage centrifuge, and in the two-stage centrifuge, continuously centrifuging the thickened wet salt in a first stage of centrifuging to remove more liquid, then washing the salt from the first stage of centrifuging, and then centrifuging the washed salt from the first stage of centrifuging in a second stage of centrifuging to remove liquid and yield the substantially dry crystalline salt product. THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the following rejections, which we refer to by number in our analysis: Rejection 1. Claims 2-12 and 25-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph; Rejection 2. Claims 2-12 and 25-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Verlaeten1 in view of Dugua2, Fink3, Augustine4, and optionally in view of Jacob5. Rejection 3. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Verlaeten in view of Dugua and Fink. 1 US 4,428,918, issued January 31, 1984. 2 US 4,780,303, issued October 25, 1988. 3 US 4,200,529, issued April 29, 1980. 4 US 5,258,340, issued November 2, 1993. 5 US 4,043,861, issued August 23, 1977. Appeal 2012-000813 Application 11/652,890 4 ANALYSIS Appellants are familiar with our decision in Appeal No. 2011-010535, mailed December 31, 2012, which relates to an application that discloses “certain common subject matter” as the instant application, although “the respective claims relate to different inventions.” App. Br. 2 (statement of related appeals). In Section II below, we address an issue that is substantially identical to an issue resolved in Appeal No. 2011-010535. I. Rejection One: Indefiniteness under Section 112 ¶ 2 Claims 25 and 26, the only independent claims, set forth a method of “continuously simultaneously manufacturing” bleach and salt products that are further defined. The method involves “continuously withdrawing a slurry from a first tank[.]” The invention relates to a continuous (as opposed to batch) production process involving a recycle solution. See Spec. [0004]- [0005], [0011]-[0012], [0022]. The Examiner rejects Claims 25 and 26 as indefinite for failing to define whether “the limitation ‘in which a continuous reaction is producing’” and a “‘recycle solution begin to mix with slurry already in the tank’ is positively [a] process limitation or just a description of the ‘first tank’.” Ans. 5. The Examiner further rejects Claim 25 as indefinite on the ground that it is “unclear if the ‘continuously withdrawing a slurry from a first tank’ (lines 4-5 of Claim 25) is the same or different than the step of ‘continuously withdrawing from the first tank’” a “‘slurry that is to be processed . . . and the substantially dry crystalline salt product’.” Id. Our analysis of Claim 25 disposes of all issues raised as to Rejection I. We agree with Appellants that the first paragraph of Claim 25 introduces the parameters of a method for “continuously simultaneously Appeal 2012-000813 Application 11/652,890 5 manufacturing” specified bleach and salt products, including a continuous reaction for producing a slurry in a first tank; the second paragraph defines the level within that tank below which the slurry is continuously withdrawn “to be further processed to yield the” specified products; and the remaining subparagraphs recite with adequate clarity what is done to the continuously withdrawn slurry to yield those products. Claim 25; see App. Br. 14-15. On this record, we reverse Rejection One. II. Rejections Two and Three: Obviousness under Section 103(a) We here address an issue that is substantially identical to an issue resolved in Appeal No. 2011-010535. See supra p. 4. The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of the pending claims would have been obvious over Verlaeten in combination with other references. Claims 25 and 26, the only independent claims, require that “a recycle solution comprising slurry” is “continuously withdrawn from the tank at a level below where the lower-strength bleach, the sodium hydroxide solution, the chlorine, and the recycle solution begin to mix with slurry already in the tank[.]” The Examiner recognizes that, in Verlaeten’s process, slurry to be filtered “is withdrawn from the top of the reaction chamber” above the mixing point of the reactants. Ans. 7; see Verlaeten Fig. (slurry is withdrawn via pipe (6) and reactants are introduced via pipe (3) (alkali hydroxide) and pipe (4) (chlorine)). In the Examiner’s view, it would have been obvious to withdraw Verlaeten’s slurry “from any point as long as such point is within the annular zone (7).” Ans. 7; see Verlaeten Fig. Appellants disagree, contending that Verlaeten “deliberately strive[s] to keep the suspension of crystals, and especially larger ones that are desired for filtering, near the top of zone 7.” Appeal 2012-000813 Application 11/652,890 6 App. Br. 18 (emphasis omitted). On this point, Verlaeten states: “The upward velocity of the gas in the reaction chamber should be sufficient to ensure upward displacement of the suspension of crystals in the reaction chamber up to the point where it is drawn-off from it.” Id. (quoting Verlaeten 3:32-35). In Verlaeten, “the velocity of the gas is controlled to avoid allowing the largest crystals of sodium chloride to settle at the bottom of the reaction chamber.” Id. (citing Verlaeten Claim 9) (emphasis omitted). We find that each of Verlaeten’s patent claims contains a limitation requiring “continuously recovering the suspension by drawing off out of the upper part of the reaction chamber and separating it into at least two fractions[.]” Verlaeten at Claims 1, 11 (independent claims) (emphasis added). The only reasonable interpretation is that the location of pipe (6) is important in Verlaeten’s process and that is why Verlaeten specifies that the slurry is withdrawn from “the upper part of the reaction chamber[.]” Id. On this record, we find untenable the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to withdraw Verlaeten’s slurry “from any point as long as such point is within the annular zone (7).” Ans. 7. For the above reasons, we reverse Rejections Two and Three. CONCLUSION We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting Claims 2-12 and 25-26. REVERSED bar