Ex Parte Reed

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

14105832 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/105,832
16404 7590
Leber Patent Law P,C,
4 Laurel Rd.
Lynnfield, MA 01940
12/13/2013
03/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Reed
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.
000048-00lUS1 6672
EXAMINER
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
celia@leberpatentlaw.com
admin@leberpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK REED
Appeal2016-002738
Application 14/105,832
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision2
finally rejecting claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ballantine
et al. (U.S. 6,758,150 B2, issued July 6, 2004 ("Ballantine") in view of Edmondson
(U.S. 7,032,525 Bl, issued Apr. 25, 2006 ("Edmondson")), and (2) claims 5 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ballantine, Edmondson, and Rummelhoff et al.
(U.S. 2013/0034817 Al, published Feb. 7, 2013). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as R&R Technologies, Inc. Appeal
Brief filed Aug. 17, 2015 ("App. Br."), 1.
2 Final Office Action mailed Dec. 23, 2014 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2016-002738
Application 14/105,832
The invention relates to a device for pyrolyzing waste materials and
recovering heat from the pyrolysis process. Specification filed Dec. 13, 2013
("Spec."), 1, Field of the Invention. An exemplary embodiment of a pyrolysis unit
in accordance with the invention is shown in Figure 1, reproduced below. Spec. 4,
Description of the Drawings.
,./[!
/
FIG 1 3.& ...
\ \~·O
~~ \. :~4\ \ ~~.'.? \ \ 1-;~.2
-...., \ '· i,, \ /
~ ~
H
\ ~:: // ~·
\ 38 I ~;cc-cc-cc.cc:~/
;; (
n \
~ ~ '\
H ~~__j
As shown in Figure 1 above, pyrolysis unit 10 includes combustion chamber
12 containing burners 14 that are adapted to generate and supply hot combustion
gases. Id., Detailed Description, second para. Main retort 16, disposed in
combustion chamber 12, includes slots or other openings in its upper surface that
are in fluid communication with syngas conduit 17. Id., third para. Feedstock is
delivered to main retort 16 at feed end 20 and is conveyed to discharge end 22 of
main retort 16 via screw 18. Id. at 4, third para.-5, first para. While the feedstock
is conveyed, it is subjected to heat from burners 14 and to the hot combustion
gases swirling about main retort 16, pyrolyzing the feedstock and generating
syngas. Id. at 5, second para. The syngas is exhausted through syngas relief duct
28 that extends vertically from main retort 16. Id., third para. Syngas relief duct
2
Appeal2016-002738
Application 14/105,832
28 is in sealed fluid communication with the outlet of the syngas conduit 17. Id.
Syngas relief duct 28 is disposed within flue gas relief duct 30 that is in sealed
fluid communication with combustion chamber 12. Id. The syngas is kept warm
as it travels through syngas relief duct 28 by the hot flue gases exhausted from
combustion chamber 12 through flue gas relief duct 30. Id. The exhausted syngas
and flue gas combine in a mixing chamber and are treated further in a manner that
reduces atmospheric emissions. See id. at 6.
Appellant's arguments in support of patentability of all appealed claims are
based on limitations in claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal. See App.
Br. 5-12. Accordingly, claims 3-15 will stand or fall with claim 1. For reference,
claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A pyrolysis device comprising:
a combustion chamber containing one or more burners
configured to generate hot flue gases;
a main retort, disposed within the combustion chamber,
configured to at least partially pyrolyze a feedstock delivered to the
retort, thereby generating syngas;
a mixing chamber, into which the syngas and flue gases flow;
a flue gas relief duct having a first end in sealing fluid
communication with the combustion chamber and a second end in
fluid communication with the mixing chamber; and
disposed within the flue gas relief duct, a syngas relief duct
having a first end in fluid communication with the main retort and a
second end in fluid communication with the mixing chamber.
Id. at 14.
3
Appeal2016-002738
Application 14/105,832
Ballantine "relates to devices and methods for thermally breaking down
waste products such as refuse, producing recyclable commodities, recovering
waste heat and converting the same to energy. 3 Ballantine, 1: 15-18. Figure 2 of
Ballantine is reproduced below.
f'ICJ!
// __ .,,,
,,_,./ ........ -.-.-.-.-.-.23.
/'
"' , • .. -"- ,"""-, ,,.;.---., __ ,. ""----- i, . ,_ , ') ! . ~ ~s
;~/~:::: L~~,>t±::: JO ---"~-'~:,~:--:'~,.l!] 1 f ~:~
.. s=£~~JiJ=3~§[~~,!~ifi,~~~~;5
I ~_,_ ~ .... .. w -.........-.c::R .f:•·'!:
/ i:m-----t:~----. . .. _ ..
$~) ... ~'
Ballantine's pyrolysis unit 12, illustrated in Figure 2 above, includes
combustion chamber 18 having burners 30 disposed thereon for generating and
supplying hot combustion gases into combustion chamber 18. Id. at 3:47-50.
Generally-closed, first retort segment 32 is disposed substantially axially through
combustion chamber 18. Id. at 3:56-57. Feedstock is delivered to first retort
segment 32 at feed end 36 and is conveyed to discharge end 38 via screw 34. Id. at
3:63--66. While conveyed, the feedstock is subjected to the heat from burners 30
and the hot combustion gases swirling about first retort segment 32. Id. at 5: 10-
13. Collection vent 90 (not enumerated in Fig. 2, but see Fig. 1) is disposed in
combustion chamber 18 to collect gases liberated during pyrolysis in first retort
3 The full disclosure of Ballantine is incorporated by reference in the present
application. Spec. 1, Background, fourth para.
4
Appeal2016-002738
Application 14/105,832
segment 32. Id. at 6:26-28. Collection vent 90 may be, for example, a pipe
arranged in parallel to first retort segment 32 and having openings 92 along its
length in communication with the interior of first retort segment 32. Id. at 6:29-
32. Vent 90 is maintained at a negative pressure to draw pyrolysis gases in retort
segment 32 through openings 92 and into thermal oxidizer unit 14 (shown in Fig.
1). Id. at 6:32-34, 38--40. The hot combustion gases exit combustion chamber 18
through exhaust 28. Id. at 3:54--55.
The Examiner finds Ballatine discloses a pyrolysis device as claimed in
claim 1, with the exception of an explicit disclosure of a "mixing chamber" (claim
1). Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds, more specifically, that the claimed "syngas
relief duct" reads on Ballantine' s vent 90 which extends the entire distance across
chamber 18. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds the claimed "flue gas relief duct" reads
on "any section" of Ballantine's combustion chamber 18 "downstream of a burner
[30] where flue gas flows." Id. The Examiner further finds Ballantine's "flue gas
relief duct ha[ s] a first end in sealing fluid communication with the combustion
chamber" (claim 1) because "[a]ll the flue gas that is generated in the combustion
zone/chamber is transferred to the flue gas relief duct." Ans. 7. The Examiner
relies on Edmondson's disclosure that "[m]ixing the flue gas with the pyrolized
vapor has the benefit of reducing NOx emissions upon the combustion of the
combined vapor" (Edmondson, 2:35-37) in support of a finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Ballantine' s
pyrolysis device to include a mixing chamber, resulting in the invention as
claimed. See Final Act. 3--4.
Appellant contends the Examiner's rejection is based on an overly broad
interpretation of the claim term "flue gas relief duct." Reply Brief filed Dec. 27,
2015 ("Reply Br."), 1. Appellant contends the term "duct" is used in the
5
Appeal2016-002738
Application 14/105,832
"specification and drawings to refer to a conduit through which flue gases flow
after they are exhausted from the combustion chamber," and that this usage of the
term "duct" is consistent with the accepted dictionary definition of "a tube, pipe or
conduit through which a fluid is conveyed." Id. at 2 (citing "the many virtually
identical definitions from various sources at www.onelook.com"). Appellant
further contends the Specification and claims use the terms "combustion zone" and
"flue gas relief duct" "to refer to two separate structures with different functions."
Id. Notably, Appellant does not direct us to any specific disclosure in the
Specification in support of this argument.
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries,
"may be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation;
it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from
how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification." Tempo Lighting, Inc.
v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977-78 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
The Specification describes generating syngas in main retort 16, the syngas
travels through syngas conduit 17 and into syngas relief duct 28. See Spec. 4,
Detailed Description, second para.; id. at 5, second para. The Specification
describes hot flue gases traveling through combustion chamber 12 and into flue gas
relief duct 30. See id. at 5, second para. The Specification further discloses that
"[t]he hot flue gases in the combustion chamber ... are exhausted from the
combustion chamber through the flue gas relief duct 30, keeping the syngas warm
as it travels through the syngas relief duct 28. The temperature of the flue gas and
6
Appeal2016-002738
Application 14/105,832
the syngas in their respective chambers is relatively close to the temperature of
these gases in the combustion chamber." Id., third para. (emphasis added).
The interchangeble use of the terms "duct"4 and "chamber" in the
Specification to describe the structures through which the flue gas and syngas
travel enroute to mixing chamber 32 supports the Examiner's determination that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "flue gas relief duct"
encompasses a downstream, post-combustion (i.e., post-flue gas generation)
section of Ballantine's chamber 18. As noted above, Appellant has not directed us
to, nor do we discern, any language in the claims or Specification to support
Appellant's contention that the flue gas relief duct must be a separate structure
from the combustion chamber. See Reply Br. 2; see also id. at 3 (arguing "'sealing
fluid communication' would be understood by the person of ordinary skill in the
art to mean sealing communication between two separate elements"). To the
contrary, the Specification broadly describes the pyrolysis unit as "rout[ing] syngas
discharge in a manner that reduces maintenance of the unit, [and] rout[ing] flue
gases in a manner that recovers their heat and eliminates discharge of flue gas to
the environment." Spec. 4, Detailed Description, first para.
Appellant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
modified Ballantine to include a mixing chamber, "a wholesale modification of
Ballantine' s system." Reply 3. According to Appellant, "the artisan would have
likely utilized Edmonson's system instead of Ballantine's, rather than endeavoring
to redesign Ballantine's system with no guidance as to how to do so." Id.
4 There is a presumption that the claim term "duct" has the same meaning whether
preceded by the claim terms "flue gas relief' or "syngas relief." See Chamberlain
Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("'[B]inary code'
and 'trinary code' should have parallel meanings, differing only insofar as 'binary'
and 'trinary' differ in their relationships to the numbers 2 and 3.").
7
Appeal2016-002738
Application 14/105,832
Appellant's argument lacks evidentiary support and fails to provide a persuasive
explanation of why the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner in support of
the proposed modification of Ballantine (see Final Act. 3--4) are erroneous or
unreasonable.
Any additional arguments raised by Appellant in the Appeal and Reply
Briefs have been fully considered, but are not persuasive of reversible error for the
reasons expressed in the Answer. See Ans. 5-8. Accordingly, for the reasons
stated above and in the Answer, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1
and 3-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequenct action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8