Telford, Julia Helen. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2019

13133950 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019)

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.
13/133,950 06/10/2011 Julia Helen Telford F3501USw 6980
201 7590 12/19/2019
UNILEVER PATENT GROUP
700 SYLVAN AVENUE
Floor A4
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ 07632-3100
EXAMINER
COX, STEPHANIE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2019 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):
patentgroupus@unilever.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JULIA HELEN TELFORD,
ANDREA WILLIAMS, and SHIPING ZHU
__________

Appeal 2019-003828
Application 13/133,950
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejections of
claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Conopco,
Inc., d/b/a Unilever (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2019-003828
Application 13/133,950

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to edible composites of gas hydrate
and ice; and frozen confections comprising such composites (Spec. 1:4–5).
The Specification describes that a gas hydrate, i.e., a clathrate, is a
crystalline solid which consists of a gas molecule surrounded by a cage of
water molecules (id. at 4:6–7).
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added):
1. A method for producing an edible composite of gas
hydrate and ice, the method comprising the steps of:
a) contacting an aqueous solution with carbon dioxide or
nitrous oxide at a sufficiently high pressure to form a
gas hydrate, but at a temperature preventing this; and
then
b) reducing the temperature of the solution to form the
gas hydrate and ice; characterized in that the aqueous
solution contains from 0.01 to 5 wt% of an aerating
agent.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–7 and 9–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bee (US 4,738,862; issued Apr. 19, 1988), in view
of Bramley et al. (US 2007/0141206 A1; published Jun. 21, 2007,
“Bramley”), in further view of Susan Circone et al., CO2 Hydrate:
Synthesis, Composition, Structure, Dissociation Behavior, and a
Comparison to Structure I CH4 Hydrate, J. Phys. Chem. B,
107(23):5529–39 (2003) (“Circone”) (Final Act. 3–4).
2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bee, in view of Bramley, and Circone, and further in view of
Appeal 2019-003828
Application 13/133,950

3
Alder et al. (US 3,220,204; issued Nov. 30, 1965, “Alder”) (Final Act.
5).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following for
emphasis.
A. Rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–13 as unpatentable over the
combination of Bee, Bramley, and Circone.
Appellant’s arguments for reversal of the Examiner’s rejection to
claims 1–7 and 9–13 implicitly focus on limitations recited in independent
claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 5, 8). We select claim 1 as representative of claims
2–7 and 9–13. Accordingly, claims 2–7 and 9–13 will stand or fall with our
analysis of claim 1.
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding Bee, Bramley, and Circone are located on pages 3–4 of the Final
Office Action.
The Examiner finds that Bee’s production of an edible gas hydrate
and ice composite would have rendered obvious each step and limitation of
the method recited in independent claim 1, except that Bee does not disclose
preventing the formation of a gas hydrate by adjusting the temperature (Final
Act. 3). In particular, the Examiner finds that Bee explicitly discloses
a method for producing an edible composite of gas hydrate and
ice, comprising contacting water with carbon dioxide at a high
pressure of 35 bar and a temperature of 5 °C to form a gas hydrate
Appeal 2019-003828
Application 13/133,950

4
and reducing the temperature to −15 °C in order to form a gas
hydrate and ice
(Ans. 6 (citing Bee Abstract; 2:16–25); see also Spec. Fig. 1).
The Examiner finds that Circone teaches forming carbon dioxide
hydrate along with phase diagrams depicting the behavior of water and
carbon dioxide at given pressures and temperatures (Final Act. 3; see
Circone Fig. 2 (graphing the “[p]ressure-temperature history during CO2
hydrate synthesis.”)). Based on these teachings, the Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to vary Bee’s temperature and pressure based on Circone’s
teachings to provide the desired hydrate/clathrate result, “as this is merely
leveraging already known relationships” (Final Act. 4).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s applied prior art would not
render obvious the step of “contacting an aqueous solution with carbon
dioxide . . . at a sufficiently high pressure to form a gas hydrate, but at a
temperature preventing this,” as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8).
Specifically, Appellant contends the Examiner has not established that
Circone’s teachings would have caused “one of ordinary skill to change
Bee’s process of forming a chlathrate [sic, clathrate] and then reducing the
temperature” (id.).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As the Examiner concludes, one of ordinary skill in the would have
been able to select a desired phase based upon Circone’s phase diagrams,
which depict the known relationship between water and CO2, at the
disclosed pressures and temperatures (see Ans. 6–7). Essentially, we find
that the only difference between Bee’s method and the claimed method is
that Bee’s method does not manipulate temperature to the extent required by
Appeal 2019-003828
Application 13/133,950

5
the claim. We agree with the Examiner that selecting a desired phase by
temperature manipulation would have applied “what is already known to
affect a desired result” (see id. at 7). Appellant does not dispute this finding
(see Appeal Br. 8). Appellant, moreover, does not allege any criticality with
respect to separating the temperature reduction step from the preceding step
of contacting an aqueous solution with CO2 at sufficiently high pressure (see
id.).
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, the preponderance of
the evidence favors the Examiner’s finding and conclusion that it would
have been obvious to: (i) contact an aqueous solution with carbon dioxide at
a sufficiently high pressure, but at a temperature preventing gas hydrate
formation and, thereafter, (ii) reduce the solution’s temperature to form a gas
hydrate.
Appellant asserts that Bramley’s teaching does not remedy the
“deficiencies in Bee and Circone concerning the method of forming
hydrates” (Appeal Br. 9). For the reasons set forth above, we find no such
deficiencies in Bee and Circone.
Thus, based on this record, we sustain this rejection.
B. Rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over the combination of Bee,
Bramley, Circone, and Adler.
With regard to claim 8, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding Bee, Bramley, Circone, and Adler are located on page 5 of the
Final Office Action.
Appellant’s arguments for reversal of the Examiner’s rejection to
claim 8 implicitly focus on limitations recited in independent claim 1 (see
Appeal Br. 5, 8). For the reasons set forth above, the combined teachings of
Appeal 2019-003828
Application 13/133,950

6
Bee, Bramley, and Circone would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
Accordingly, claim 8 falls with our analysis of claim 1.
Thus, based on this record, we sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–13 103(a) Bee, Bramley,
Circone
1–7, 9–13
8 103(a)

Bee, Bramley,
Circone, Adler
8
Overall
Outcome
1–13
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED