Applied Research Associates, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2020

2020004038 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2020)

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.
14/595,968 01/13/2015 Edward N. Coppola 6999-146690 5406
28289 7590 06/24/2020
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
EXAMINER
STEIN, MICHELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2020 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):
patents@webblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDWARD N. COPPOLA,
SANJAY NANA, and CHARLES RED JR.

Appeal 2020-004038
Application 14/595,968
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19, 21–23, and 34–36. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Jan. 13, 2015
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated July 12, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed Dec. 11, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
dated Mar. 9, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed May 8, 2020 (“Reply
Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Applied Research Associates, Inc. is identified as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004038
Application 14/595,968

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a high-efficiency process and system for
converting high-pour-point, high-melting-point petroleum or synthetic
organic feedstock into upgraded crude or fuel products that exhibit good
low-temperature properties (cloud point, pour point, and viscosity) and
improved transportability. Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification describes waxy crude
oils exhibit high-pour-points (greater than 110ºF), are semi-solid at ambient
temperatures, and require heated trucks or train cars, or heated pipelines for
transport to markets outside the local area. Id. ¶ 3. The Specification further
describes heated waxy crude oils present a safety problem since they exhibit
flash points close to their pour point. Id. According to the Specification,
solutions to the transportation problems have focused mostly on the use of
additives to reduce the pour point. Id. ¶ 4.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal (disputed limitations italicized).
1. A continuous flow process for converting a
high-pour-point organic feedstock to an upgraded
product comprising:
providing a high-pour-point organic feedstock;
feeding the high-pour-point organic feedstock into a
separation system to produce a distillate fraction and a bottoms
fraction;
feeding the bottoms fraction from the separation system
into a hydrothermal reactor system operating at supercritical
water conditions and turbulent flow having a Reynolds number
of at least 2000 to produce an upgraded bottoms fraction; and
feeding at least a portion of the upgraded bottoms
fraction back into the separation system used to separate the
Appeal 2020-004038
Application 14/595,968

3
high-pour point organic feedstock to form the upgraded
product.
Appeal Br. 29 (Claims Appendix).

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims in light of the case law presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded of reversible error in the appealed
rejections.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–19, 21–23, and 34–36 as follows. Final
Act. 3–9.
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1, 3, 5–8, 10–12, 15–
19, 21, 34 103
Espinoza,3 Choi4 (evidenced
by Henderson5), He6
(evidenced by Green7)
4, 9, 22 103
Espinoza, Choi (evidenced by
Henderson), He (evidenced by
Green), Berkowitz8

3 US 2006/0016722 A1, published Jan. 26, 2006.
4 US 2009/0145805 A1, published June 11, 2009.
5 US 2005/0131082 A1, published June 16, 2005.
6 US 2008/0099374 A1, published May 1, 2008.
7 US 4,135,982, issued Jan. 23, 1979.
8 US 2007/0056881 A1, published Mar. 15, 2007.
Appeal 2020-004038
Application 14/595,968

4
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
13, 14 103
Espinoza, Choi evidenced by
Henderson, He evidenced by
Green, Davis9
2, 35, 36 103
Espinoza, Choi evidenced by
Henderson, He evidenced by
Green, Yarbro10

Each of the rejections is based on the same modification of Espinoza
with Choi (as evidenced by Henderson) and He (as evidenced by Green).
Thus, the dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner’s
modification of Espinoza’s process with Choi’s supercritical water
conditions and He’s turbulent flow is supported by reasoning having rational
underpinnings. Conclusory statements are insufficient to merit an
obviousness rejection; “instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appellant argues modification of Espinoza would render Espinoza
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 16. With regard to the
Examiner’s modification with Choi’s supercritical water conditions to
reduce coke formation and pour point of the waxy feedstock (Final Act. 4),
Appellant points out (1) Espinoza already quenches the thermal cracker
effluent at the reaction chamber outlet to stop the cracking reaction to
prevent excessive coke formation and (2) increasing the pressure in
Espinoza’s thermal cracking environment would increase the reaction of

9 US 4,536,283, issued Aug. 20, 1985.
10 US 2013/0206645 A1, published Aug. 15, 2013.
Appeal 2020-004038
Application 14/595,968

5
olefins and aromatics formed during the reaction, increase the coke yield,
and reduce distillate yield. Appeal Br. 16–17 (citing Espinoza ¶¶ 60, 61);
Reply Br. 2. Modification with He’s turbulent flow, Appellant contends,
would result in undesired backmixing, which Espinoza seeks to avoid with
internal baffles. Appeal Br. 17–18 (citing Espinoza ¶ 61); Reply Br. 2–4.
Appellant additionally contends that He does not teach operating at the
claimed Reynolds number of at least 2000, and Appellant provides
calculations and the Declaration of co-inventor Edward N. Coppola signed
June 20, 2019 (“Decl.”) to show (1) He’s examples operate at a low
Reynolds Number and (2) He’s reactor cannot be realistically operated at
turbulent flow of at least Reynolds number 2000. Appeal Br. 18–22 (citing
He ¶¶ 44, 54; Decl. Tables 2, 3); Reply Br. 4–8 (citing He ¶¶ 44, 54; Decl.
Tables 2, 3).
The Examiner’s response does not adequately address Appellant’s
arguments regarding the modification of Espinoza’s process with Choi’s
supercritical water conditions and He’s turbulent flow. The Examiner finds
Espinoza’s teaching that the thermal cracking may be “accomplished by any
suitable thermal cracking process” suggests modification with Choi’s
thermal cracking, which Choi, in turn, teaches produces substantial amounts
of coke that can be diminished by using hot pressurized supercritical water
fluid. Ans. 9 (citing Espinoza ¶ 60; Choi ¶¶ 12, 13, 42). The Examiner’s
response does not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would modify
Espinoza’s process with (1) a thermal cracking process that produces
substantial amounts of coke and (2) a process for reducing coke when
Espinoza already teaches quenching the thermal cracker effluent to prevent
excessive coke formation. The Examiner also does not adequately explain
Appeal 2020-004038
Application 14/595,968

6
why a skilled artisan would modify Espinoza’s process with turbulent flow
in view of Espinoza’s teaching to reduce backmixing. Espinoza ¶ 61
(“Modern reaction chambers for thermal cracking are equipped with
internals so as to reduce backmixing effects, thus maximizing the viscosity
reduction.”). Therefore, we find the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellant’s position that modification of Espinoza with the teachings of
Choi and He is not adequately supported with reasoning and would render
Espinoza unsuitable for its intended purpose.
The Examiner’s response also does not adequately address
Appellant’s evidence that He does not disclose or suggest turbulent flow
having a Reynolds number of at least 2000. Appellant provides sufficient
evidence and explanation to show that neither He’s examples nor He’s
disclosed parameters teach or suggest operating at the claimed Reynolds
number of at least 2000. Appeal Br. 18–23; Reply Br. 4–8; Decl. Even if the
flow disclosed by He can be characterized as “turbulent” (Ans. 10 citing He
claim 7), the term “turbulent” does not adequately disclose or suggest the
claimed flow having a Reynolds number of at least 2000. The Examiner
questions Appellant’s evidence with respect to He not limiting reactor
diameter to 0.25 inches or 0.5 inches. Ans. 10. Appellant responds that He
discloses use of a spiral tube, therefore, the maximum diameter that can be
configured into a spiral tube is 0.25 to 2 inches. Reply Br. 5. Appellant
adequately explained the basis for He’s reactor diameter range in the Appeal
Brief. Appeal Br. 20.
The Examiner also questions Appellant’s evidence directed to a
residence time of 30 minutes whereas He teaches residence times of one
minute to 6 hours. Ans. 10. Appellant points to the Declaration’s Tables 2
Appeal 2020-004038
Application 14/595,968

7
and 3 (reproduced in both the Appeal and Reply Briefs) including operating
parameters at a Reynolds number of 2000 at one minute and 360 minutes
residence time (the residence time parameters He discloses) and across the
nominal reactor diameters ranging from 0.25 inch to 2 inches. Reply Br. 5–
8; Appeal Br. 20–23. Thus, Appellant’s evidence is not limited to He’s
working examples, but encompasses data across He’s disclosed parameters
from which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to
determine the limitations of He’s system design with respect to flow rate.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–19,
21–23, and 34–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Espinoza,
Choi, and He together with secondary references.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons and those the Appellant provides, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–19, 21–23, and 34–36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Appeal 2020-004038
Application 14/595,968

8

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–8, 10–
12, 15–19,
21, 34
103 Espinoza, Choi, Henderson, He, Green
1, 3, 5–8,
10–12, 15–
19, 21, 34
4, 9, 22 103
Espinoza, Choi,
Henderson, He, Green,
Berkowitz
4, 9, 22
13, 14 103
Espinoza, Choi,
Henderson, He, Green,
Davis
13, 14
2, 35, 36 103
Espinoza, Choi,
Henderson, He, Green,
Yarbro
2, 35, 36
Overall
Outcome
1–19, 21–
23, 34–36

REVERSED