Ex Parte Schilder

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2013

10580643 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2013)

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. 10/580,643 02/06/2007 Johannes Gerardus Maria Schilder TS1455US 4365 23632 7590 04/26/2013 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1725 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2013 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 JOHANNES GERARDUS MARIA SCHILDER ____________ Appeal 2011-012516 Application 10/580,643 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examinerâ€™s final rejection of claims 1-12 and 16-19. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. Appeal 2011-012516 Application 10/580,643 2 Appellantâ€™s claimed invention is directed to a spray ring comprising a loop conduit arranged in a loop-line and provided with an inlet at an inlet point arranged for feeding wetting fluid into the loop conduit in an inlet flow direction, wherein the inlet flow direction has a component that is tangential to a loop-line flow direction of the wetting fluid through the loop conduit at the inlet point. In addition, the spray ring includes a plurality of outlet conduits for spraying wetting fluid out of the loop conduit. The spray ring is used for spraying wetting fluid for wetting char and/or slag in a water bath with the wetting fluid. The spray ring can be combined with a reactor vessel including a reaction area and a slag water bath located below the reaction area wherein the spray ring is arranged above the water bath surface and below the reaction area. According to Appellant (Spec. para. bridging pp. 2 and 3), Due to the loop-line arrangement of the spray ring, the wetting fluid can circulate through the spray ring. By arranging the inlet flow direction to have a component that is tangential to the circulation flow direction of the wetting fluid through the spray ring, the circulation of the wetting fluid through the spray ring is induced or at least enhanced. Settlement of solid particles that may be entrained in the wetting fluid is prevented or reduced by inducing or at least enhancing the circulation. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A spray ring, for wetting char and/or slag in a water bath with a wetting fluid, the spray ring comprising a loop conduit arranged in a loop-line, which loop conduit is at an inlet point provided with an inlet for feeding the wetting fluid into the loop conduit in an inlet flow direction, and with a plurality of outlet openings for spraying the wetting fluid out of the loop conduit, wherein the inlet flow Appeal 2011-012516 Application 10/580,643 3 direction has a component that is tangential to a loop-line flow direction of the wetting fluid through the loop conduit at the inlet point. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims: Anderson 4,046,541 Sep. 6, 1977 Segerstrom EP 031807 A1 May 31, 1989 Ellis 4,000,753 Jan. 4, 1977 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection. Claims 1, 2, and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Anderson. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Segerstrom. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Segerstrom. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Segerstrom in view of Ellis. We reverse the stated rejections. Our reasons follow. Concerning the anticipation rejection over Anderson, the Examiner relies on Anderson for allegedly describing a spray ring 126 in the shape of a loop that has a plurality of inlet conduits 125 that tangentially introduce cooling fluid into the loop conduit as shown in Figure 3 of Anderson and as described by Anderson at column 6, lines11-28 of the Patent (Ans. 3, 4, 9, and 10). However, the referenced text and Figure 3 of Anderson do not describe and/or depict the tangential introduction of cooling fluid into a spray ring 126 comprising a loop conduit arranged in a loop-line through a plurality of conduits 125 and then through a plurality of outlet conduits Appeal 2011-012516 Application 10/580,643 4 (openings) for spraying fluid out of the loop conduit, as urged by the Examiner (Ans. 3 and 4). Rather, Figure 3 and the text of Anderson cited by the Examiner appear to provide for a plurality of tangential water outlet injectors (125a-125h) that direct water to the inner wall of slag duct 106, as argued by Appellants (Br. 3-4). In this regard, Figure 3 and the cited text of Anderson depict and describe the use of what appears to be a single conduit 125 for flowing water to spray ring 126 without specifying the arrangement of the conduit 125 at the point where the conduit 125 intersects with a spray ring comprising a loop conduit; that is, without specifying how the conduit 125 is arranged relative to loop 126 such that the nozzles 125a-h are specified in the context of a separate spray ring 126 comprising a loop-line (Anderson, col. 6, ll. 11-20). As argued by Appellants, Figure 3 and the text of Anderson cited by the Examiner provide for a plurality of tangential water nozzles (125a- 125h) that direct water into the slag duct 106 and form a thin film of water along the slag duct wall. We recognize that Figure 3 of Anderson and the corresponding text of the Patent may be subject to more than one interpretation. However, the Examiner has not discharged the burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Anderson describes, with anticipatory specificity, a plurality of tangential inlets 125 for a spray ring 126 such that these conduits are arranged to feed water in a tangential inlet flow direction into the ring 126, which ring 126, itself, comprises a loop conduit arranged in a loop-line, and which inlets are arranged to provide a flow direction, at the inlet point, into the spray ring and which flow direction has components tangential relative to a loopâ€“line flow direction of coolant provided by the loop-line arrangement of a ring 126. Appeal 2011-012516 Application 10/580,643 5 On this record, we reverse the anticipation rejection over Anderson. With respect to the second stated anticipation rejection, we determine that the Examiner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the perpendicular supply duct (shown unlabeled on the left-hand side of Figures 2 and 5) and the arrangement of the spray ring 26 of Segerstrom are such as to provide for a tangential inlet flow component of the supply duct flow at an inlet point that is arranged for feeding the supply duct fluid into the spray ring 26 in an inlet flow direction, wherein the inlet flow direction has a component that is tangential to a loop-line flow direction of fluid circulating through the spray ring 26 at the inlet point, as essentially urged by Appellant (Br. 4). In this regard, the Examiner appears to engage in conjecture concerning the inlet flow direction provided by the inlet conduit (supply duct) of Segerstrom at the inlet point to the spray ring 26 (Ans. 5 and 6). Moreover, the Examiner errs to the extent that the separately required flow direction limitations of the rejected appealed claims are being discounted as being non-structural (Ans. 6). In particular, the rejected independent claims 1 and 9 require that the claimed spray ring has a loop conduit arranged in a loop-line that provides for a loop-line flow direction and an inlet for the spray ring for feeding wetting fluid into the loop conduit, which inlet is arranged so as to provide for an inlet flow direction which has a tangential component to the loop-line flow direction at an inlet point to the loop conduit (see claims 1 and 9; Spec. 8, ll. 8-19). On this record, the Examiner has not established that Segerstrom describes structure that is encompassed by the anticipatorily rejected appealed claims. Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejection over Segerstrom. Appeal 2011-012516 Application 10/580,643 6 As for the separate obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3 and 6, the Examiner limits the obviousness presentations to the added features of the dependent claims, relying on Segerstrom for describing the features of the independent claim, from which these separately rejected claims depend (Ans. 8 and 9). It follows that we shall likewise reverse these latter rejections which are built upon the ill-equipped foundation of the Examinerâ€™s findings in the reversed anticipation rejection of claim 1. ORDER The Examinerâ€™s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed. REVERSED tc