PTAB: Ex parte Stanley Marcus Meyer and Jason Scott Meyer
Transformation of an abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, Practical application
PTAB Appeal 2022-000384
Abstract from Application on Appeal
The present disclosure relates, according to some embodiments, to systems and methods for processing organic compounds, such as manure or other organic waste. Embodiments may comprise a first containment or mixing chamber, a first anaerobic chamber, and a second anaerobic chamber. A first anaerobic chamber may receive organic compounds from a first containment or mixing chamber, and may provide a fluid stream to a second anaerobic chamber. The second anaerobic chamber may comprise a substrate, such as lava rock, with bacteria growing thereon. Further, biogas generated in one or both of the first anaerobic chamber and the second anaerobic chamber may be purified in a first stage using a water scrubber to remove a majority of the carbon dioxide and other contaminants from the biogas, and in a second stage using a pressure swing adsorption unit to reduce carbon dioxide and other contaminants to pipeline acceptable levels. Further yet, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide gases generated during the biogas purification process may be injected into a water-containing chamber in the presence of bacteria and oxygen to convert the hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur and/or sulfate.
Representative Claim on Appeal
10. A system for processing a hydrogen sulfide-containing gas stream, the system comprising:
a chamber containing a water, wherein the chamber is a lagoon with a surface of the water being exposed to an air; and, the hydrogen sulfide-containing gas stream having a discharge being disposed below the surface of the water, wherein the chamber receives a hydrogen sulfide-containing gas at a location having sufficient carbon dioxide, oxygen and bacteria, whereby at least a portion of a hydrogen sulfide is converted to an elemental sulfur.
13. The system of claim 10, wherein the chamber is configured to receive the hydrogen sulfide-containing gas about two to thirty feet below a surface of the water.
Rejection of Claims on Appeal
35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more.
Summary of Appeal Analysis
In this appeal, Appellant argues against the rejection of claims 1-24, which relate to systems and methods for processing organic compounds, such as manure or other organic waste, and subsequent processing of resulting biogas. The invention processes manure or organic waste through anaerobic digestion vessels, removes and processes undesired compounds from the resulting biogas, and provides for odor control.
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (improper dependent form), § 101 (subject matter eligibility), and § 103 (obviousness). Appellant did not present arguments against the rejection of dependent claim 12 under § 112(d). The PTAB summarily affirmed this rejection.
The PTAB procedurally reversed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the subject matter of these claims was determined to be indefinite, making it inappropriate to speculate about the scope of the claims. The PTAB emphasized that this reversal was technical and not based on the merits of the rejections.
The PTAB entered a new ground of rejection for claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness. The issue with the claims’ language, specifically claim 10, was the lack of clarity regarding the “hydrogen sulfide-containing gas stream having a discharge being disposed below the surface of the water” in the lagoon. The claim language did not recite any structure associated with the claimed “discharge,” making it unclear how the “hydrogen sulfide-containing gas stream” could have a discharge or whether this term was meant to associate the discharge with a particular structure. The disputed language was subject to multiple interpretations, leading the PTAB to conclude that claims 1-24 were indefinite.
In conclusion, the PTAB affirmed the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), procedurally reversed the rejection of claims 6 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, procedurally reversed the rejections of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and entered a new ground of rejection for claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
