REGISTERED
August 21, 1980
Section 63(2)
4 months
Marks & Clerk
Box 957, Station B
Ottawa, Ont.
Application No: 137,814
Date Filed: March 22, 1972
Title: Water Feed And Effluent Treatment For Hydrogen
Sulfide-Water System
Dear Sir,
This will acknowledge receipt of your letters of Sept. 20, 1978, and
April 22, 1980.
The claims of this application were refused by the Examiner because, in
his view they defined the same invention as that claimed in Canadian patent
865,022, dated March 2, 1971 to Nazzer. The Nazzer application was filed
on August 2, 1968 which, it may be noted, predated Applicants Canadian filing
date (March 22, 1972) by three years plus, and predates the convention priority
date (March 22, 1971) by more than one year.
I have reviewed the arguments submitted on behalf of the Applicant and also
the amendments which were made to the claims. After careful consideration,
I have decided to accept all of the amended method claims, that is claims
1 to 10 and 21 to 24, as defining an invention different from that claimed
in the patent to Nazzer, because they eliminate a compression step before
the absorption step, and hence they do not require a pressurization of the
gas after flash-off.
On the other hand, however, I am satisfied that the apparatus claims 11 to 20,
for the reasons explained below, define essentially the same invention as that
defined in the Nazzer patent. Consequently, I now reject this application
under Section 63(2) of the Patent Act unless the Applicant commences an
action to set aside prior Canadian patent 865,022, insofar as it covers the
invention in question, within four months of the date of this letter, and
diligently prosecutes said action subsequently. In the alternative the
Applicant may delete apparatus claims 11 to 20.
It is clear that both the patent and the application deal with gas/liquid
contact processes wherein the gas is soluble in the liquid, and the liquid is
passed through a hot contact zone at elevated pressure including the steps of
removing a portion of the liquid which has passed through the hot contact zone,
removing the dissolved gas therefrom by a pressure reduction (flashing-off),
recovering the gas, and returning said gas to the system.
The present apparatus claims 11 to 20 and the apparatus claims 7 to 10 of the
patent specify an apparatus having: 1) a hot tower zone, 2) a cold tower zone,
3) a humidifier zone, 4) a gas recovery system comprising; 5) at least one
pressure reduction means (throttle means), and 6) a gas absorption means
connected to the pressure reduction means to receive gas flashed off from liquid
passing through the pressure reduction means
Additional features found in both sets of claims include: 7) a stripping
means (fractionating tower), 8) first and second pressure reduction means
(throttle devices) with the gas adsorption means connected to at least one of said
pressure reduction means by way of a compressor, 9) a means to pass stripped
effluent in heat exchange relation with water circulating through said humidifier
zone, and 10) a heating means.
The Applicant has made little or no attempt to show how his apparatus claims
are different in structure from those of the patent. He did, however, attempt to
differentiate his apparatus by restrictions which are directed to modes of operation
and not to structural features. For example, amended claim 11 requires that
the gas absorber means is "at a pressure not greater than that of the gas which
has been flashed". This is clearly a process limitation and does not alter the
fact that both sets of claims generally define the same apparatus.
I am consequently satisfied that a second patent which includes the apparatus
claims should not b a permitted. The Applicant has four months within which
to submit an appropriate amendment deleting apparatus claims 11 to 20, or
to commence an action to set aside prior Canadian patent 865,022 to Nazzer.
Yours truly,
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents