Carolus Van De Lisdonk et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 27, 20202020002436 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/133,167 06/07/2011 Carolus Antonius Cornelis Van De Lisdonk TS9651-US-PCT 1108 23632 7590 11/27/2020 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 576 HOUSTON, TX 77001-0576 EXAMINER NICHOLS, CHARLES W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2020 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): Shelldocketing@cpaglobal.com USPatents@Shell.com shellusdocketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CAROLUS ANTONIUS CORNELIS VAN DE LISDONK and JOANNES ALPHONSUS MARIA WIEGERINCK ____________ Appeal 2020-002436 Application 13/133,167 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision to reject claims 1, 5–13, and 15–19, which constitute all pending claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies “Shell Oil Company” as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002436 Application 13/133,167 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, “[t]he present invention provides a method of operating a compressor, for the reduction of relief load during a blocked outlet event, and an apparatus for the reduction of relief load during a blocked outlet event of a compressor.” Spec. 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of operating a compressor, for the reduction of relief load during a blocked outlet event, comprising at least the steps of: (a) passing one or more compressor feed streams to one or more inlets of a first compressor, each compressor feed stream passing through a compressor feed valve, wherein there are n compressor feed streams passing through n compressor feed valves and n inlets, in which n is an integer in the range of from 2 to 6; (b) compressing the one or more compressor feed streams in the first compressor to provide a compressed discharge stream at a discharge pressure at the outlet of the first compressor, passing n recycle streams taken from the compressed discharge stream to the respective compressor feed streams between the respective compressor feed valves and the respective inlets of the first compressor; (c) monitoring for a first indicator of a blocked outlet event of the first compressor, said monitoring comprising measuring the discharge pressure, and the first indicator at least comprising the discharge pressure exceeding a selected discharge pressure; and (d) instructing the shutting of the n compressor feed valves upon detection of the first indicator of the first compressor blocked outlet event. Appeal Br. 11, Claims App. Appeal 2020-002436 Application 13/133,167 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 10, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rust (US 3,527,059, iss. Sept. 8, 1970) and Mehaffey (US 5,967,761, iss. Oct. 19, 1999). II. Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rust, Mehaffey, and Lucas et al. (US 2005/0022552 A1, pub. Feb. 3, 2005) (“Lucas”). III. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rust, Mehaffey, Lucas, and Narayanan et al. (US 7,594,386 B2, iss. Sept. 29, 2009) (“Narayanan”). IV. Claims 11, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rust, Mehaffey, and Mak et al. (US 2007/0125122 A1, June 7, 2007) (“Mak”). OPINION Rejection I Claims 1, 10, 13, 15, and 18 In contesting the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 as unpatentable over Rust and Mehaffey, Appellant first argues that “Mehaffey lacks any indication or suggestion that ‘the inlet valve 65c’ would be anything other than a single valve. . . . Thus, Rust, Mehaffey, and Rust in view of Mehaffey all lack a disclosure of, at least, instructing the shutting of the n compressor feed valves upon detection of the first indicator of the first compressor blocked outlet event (wherein n is an integer in the range of from 2-6).” Appeal Br. 6. Appeal 2020-002436 Application 13/133,167 4 The Examiner responds that even though Mehaffey only teaches monitoring a single feed valve, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to apply the control system of Mehaffey to a multi compressors system having plural feed valves as this would be equivalent to a mere duplication of working parts. As it has been held, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Answer 22. We are unpersuaded of error because Appellant has not disputed or otherwise explained why the Examiner’s reasoning and reliance on In re Harza is flawed as applied to the rejection of record. Without specifically addressing the Examiner’s rationale, Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate error in the rejection of claims 1 and 13. See also Answer 6, 8 (citing In re Harza in the rejection of claims 1 and 13). Further, Appellant argues that “Rust in view of Mehaffey lacks incentive to modify” (Appeal Br. 6) because “[b]oth Rust and Mehaffey lack any reference to flaring or related events downstream of their respective compressor systems.” Id. at 7 (“The flare system must be sized to handle the anticipated relief load for such an event. The piping and flare system may account for considerable capital expenditure. It is therefore desirable to minimise [sic] the size of the piping and flare system required to handle such flows.”). “Consequently, [Appellant argues,] both Rust and Mehaffey lack any suggestion or hint to modify their respective disclosures to arrive at the method or apparatus of claim 1 and 13 respectively.” Id. at 7 (“Rust lacks any reference to downstream flaring or similar safety systems.”). Appeal 2020-002436 Application 13/133,167 5 Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner states the rejections outline that “the combination of Rust and Mehaffey teaches actively monitoring for a first indicator of a blocked outlet event, that is, noting that the discharge pressure exceeds a selected discharge pressure; and Lucas teaches why it is a beneficial to have a flaring system for such blocked event.” Answer 22–23. Appellant’s argument fails to apprise us of error at least because it’s not commensurate with the scope of claims 1 and 13. Claims 1 and 13 do not recite a flare system, and, as such, the Examiner did not rely on Rust or Mehaffey for any reference to flaring. Rather, as the Examiner points out, the rejections of claims 16 and 17, which recite “a flare system,” rely upon Lucas for that teaching. See Final Act. 9–13; see also Answer 10–15. For instance, the Examiner relies on paragraph 12 of Lucas in combining the references, which discloses: If the compressor discharge is blocked by an unexpected process event, the compressed refrigerant typically is discharged to a piping and flare system, which must be sized to handle anticipated relief flows during such an event. It is desirable to minimize the size of the piping and flare system required to handle such flows. It also may be desirable for economic and environmental reasons to minimize the amount of gas flared during process upsets or compressor discharge blockage events. See Final Act. 11. Accordingly, because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 10, 15, and 18 for the same reasons, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 9. Rejection II Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 17 Regarding dependent claims 16 and 17, Appellant argues: Rust, Mehaffey and Lucas all lack suggestions to further modify their respective disclosures. Justification for further modification of Rust in view of Mehaffey in further view of Lucas are also absent in the Office Action. As a result, it must be concluded that Rust in view of Mehaffey in further view of Lucas lacks, at least, a disclosure of flare system or relief valve, wherein one or both of the pressure relief valve and flare system is sized to accommodate less than the flow generated from the compression of all of the n compressor feed streams in the first compressor. Appeal Br. 8–9. The Examiner responds: In this case, the compressors of Rust would be better modulated resulting in a better overall system as outlined in the above rejections. The examiner has shown how the combination of Rust and Mehaffey teaches actively monitoring for a first indicator of a blocked outlet event, that is, noting that the discharge pressure exceeds a selected discharge pressure; and Lucas teaches why it is a beneficial to have a flaring system for such blocked event. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to combine Rust Mehaffey and Lucas . . . . Answer 23. We are persuaded of Examiner error as to claims 16 and 17. The Examiner’s response fails to adequately provide a reasoned rationale as to why the modified Rust and Mehaffey apparatus is further modified and combined with Lucas to teach “wherein the one or both of the pressure relief valve and flare system is sized to accommodate less than the flow generated from the compression of all of the n compressor feed streams in the first compressor,” as required by claims 16 and 17. In rejecting this limitation of claims 16 and 17 in the Final Office Action, the Examiner Appeal 2020-002436 Application 13/133,167 7 states “because of the claim language ‘at least’ and the fact that the relief system of Lucas deals with ALL of the compressor material the claim language is met.” Final Act. 10–13. In the rejection of this limitation of claims 16 and 17 provided in the Answer, the Examiner appears to have modified that statement to: Since the one or both of the pressure relief valve and flare system of Rust/Mehaffey/Lucas are sized to accommodate all the flow generated from the compression of all of the n compressor feed streams in the first compressor, it is obvious that they can accommodate less than the flow generated from the compression of all of the n compressor feed streams in the first compressor. Answer 12, 14 (emphasis added). We find the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of the references is predicated upon a conclusory statement that lacks articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. We are persuaded that “Rust in view of Mehaffey in further view of Lucas lacks sufficient teaching for an obviousness rejection of claim 16 and claim 17.” Appeal Br. 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17. We sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, and 9, which are not argued separately, for the reasons discussed above because these claims are argued based on their dependency to independent claims 1 and 13. See id. Rejection III & IV Claims 7, 11, 12, and 19 We also sustain the rejections of claims 7, 11, 12, and 19, which are not argued separately, for the reasons discussed because these claims are argued based on their dependency to independent claims 1 and 13. See id. Appeal 2020-002436 Application 13/133,167 8 CONCLUSION The decision to reject claims 1, 5–13, 15, 18, and 19 is affirmed. The decision to reject claims 16 and 17 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 10, 13, 15, 18 103(a) Rust, Mehaffey 1, 10, 13, 15, 18 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17 103(a) Rust, Mehaffey, Lucas 5, 6, 8, 9 16, 17 7 103(a) Rust, Mehaffey, Lucas, Narayanan 7 11, 12, 19 103(a) Rust, Mehaffey, Mak 11, 12, 19 Overall Outcome 1, 5–13, 15, 18, 19 16, 17 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation