CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 7, 2021

2021003391 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2021)

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.
15/925,873 03/20/2018 Dale L. EMBRY 072427-640920
(42427US02)
6859
27148 7590 06/07/2021
POLSINELLI PC
900 WEST 48TH PLACE
SUITE 900
KANSAS CITY, MO 64112-1895
EXAMINER
KING, BRIAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2021 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):
patentdocketing@polsinelli.com
rendsley@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DALE L. EMBRY, PAUL R. DAVIES, QI MA,
DAVID W. LARKIN, and MICHAEL J. CALDERON
____________

Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,8731
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,873

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “relates generally to a method and apparatus for
processing natural gas.” (Spec. ¶ 3.)
Claims 1, 7, 12, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
is illustrative. It recites:
1. A method for natural gas processing, the method
comprising:
introducing a natural gas feed to a single column refluxed
absorber;
introducing an external rich reflux gas feed to the single
column refluxed absorber;
processing the natural gas feed and the external rich reflux
gas feed in the single column refluxed absorber to produce a first
bottoms stream and a first overhead stream, wherein the first
bottoms stream and the first overhead stream are separate
streams upon expulsion from the single column refluxed
absorber;
outputting the first bottoms stream from the single column
refluxed absorber to a first heat exchanger;
outputting the first bottoms stream from the first heat
exchanger to a stabilizer column;
outputting the first overhead stream from the single
column refluxed absorber through a first condenser for partial
separation of the first overhead stream into heavies-treated
natural gas;
introducing a rich solvent to the stabilizer column;
processing the first bottoms stream and the rich solvent in
the stabilizer column to produce a second bottoms stream and a
second overhead stream, wherein the second bottoms stream and
the second overhead stream are separate streams upon expulsion
from the stabilizer column;
routing the second overhead stream through a second
condenser for partial separation of the second overhead stream
into overhead stream lights;
routing the overhead stream lights to a second heat
exchanger and then to a partial condenser;
Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,873

3
separating, in the partial condenser, the overhead stream
lights into a heavies rich reflux stream, a distillate stream and a
heavies treated natural gas stream;
routing the heavies rich reflux stream through a third heat
exchanger; and
pumping the heavies rich reflux stream to the single
column refluxed absorber to be introduced into the single column
refluxed absorber as the external rich reflux gas feed.

REJECTION
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable in
view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) Figure 2 of the present
application and Mak (US 2010/0000255 A1, pub. Jan. 7, 2010), or AAPA
Figure 2 and Mehra (US 5,561,988, iss. Oct. 8, 1996).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of
underlying facts.
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner
finds that Figure 2 of Appellant’s application is applicant admitted prior art,
Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,873

4
and the Examiner relies on Figure 2 for its disclosure of several limitations
of claim 1. (See Final Action 3–5.)
Appellant argues that Figure 2 is not AAPA and that “[e]ach of the
Figures of the present application discloses a different example
implementation of the presently disclosed technology that are the work of
the same inventive entity.” (Appeal Br. 7.) More particularly, Appellant
argues “that FIG. 2 includes new features (e.g., the novel rich reflux
stream 203, etc.), with the term ‘conventional’ only referencing a two-
column heavies removal unit.” (Id.)
We begin our examination of whether Figure 2 is AAPA by looking at
the figure itself. Figure 2 is reproduced below.

The Specification discloses that “Fig. 2 illustrates a conventional two-
column heavies removal unit design using an external rich reflux.” (Spec.
¶ 8.) This sentence can be parsed to mean either (a) a conventional two
column heavies removal unit design, and a rich reflux, as argued by
Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,873

5
Appellant, or (b) a conventional design that has both a two column heavies
removal unit and a rich reflux, as interpreted by the Examiner. We look to
other parts of the Specification for additional indicia.
The Specification discloses that the “HRU[2] design as illustrated in
Fig. 2, Conventional Two Column HRU Design with Rich Reflux 200,
replaces the lean reflux stream (LNG) 103 [shown in Figure 1] with a rich
one 203 . . . .” (Id. ¶ 16.) And the Specification discloses “the dual column
reboiled absorber 205 in the conventional two column HRU design with rich
reflux 200.” (Id. ¶ 19.) Similar to the phrase in the preceding paragraph,
these phrases can be parsed to mean either (1) a conventional two column
HRU design, and a rich reflux 200, or (2) a conventional design that has
both a two column HRU unit with a rich reflux 200. But here we have
additional indicia. The first meaning would be supported if reference
numeral 200 in the Specification refers to a rich reflux. The second meaning
would be supported if reference numeral 200 in the Specification refers to at
least the combination of the two column HRU and rich reflux.
Reference numeral 200 in Figure 2 is the lone reference numeral not
directly associated with an individual element in the illustrated design. This
strongly suggests that reference numeral 200 refers to the entirety of
Figure 2, i.e., the two column HRU and rich reflux. Moreover, in Figure 2,
it is reference numeral 205 that refers to the heavies removal unit/dual
column reboiled absorber. (Spec. ¶¶ 16, 17, 19.) If one intended to refer to
just the two-column heavies removal unit as being conventional, as argued
by Appellant (Appeal Br. 7), one would expect to see reference numeral 205

2 Heavies Removal Unit. (See Spec. ¶ 12.)
Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,873

6
recited, not reference numeral 200. E.g., one would expect to see “a
conventional two column HRU design 205 with rich reflux.” But this is not
the case.
The Specification also discloses “the conventional two column HRU
rich reflux design 200.” (Id. ¶ 18.) It is difficult to parse this phrase to mean
anything other than what it says on its face, i.e., this phrase supports
meaning (2) above. (These are the only recitations of reference numeral 200
in the Specification.)
As noted above, in describing Figure 2, the Specification states:
“Fig. 2 illustrates a conventional two-column heavies removal unit design
using an external rich reflux.” (Spec. ¶ 8.) But in describing Figure 3, the
Specification states: “Fig. 3 illustrates an alternative two-column heavies
removal unit design using an external rich reflux.” (Id. ¶ 9.)3 Thus, it is
clear that the Specification can readily describe an assertedly novel design in
terms that do not indicate the design to be conventional; i.e., the technology
does not present a unique problem in describing the invention.
In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner that the most
reasonable interpretation of the Specification’s descriptions of Figure 2 is
that the entirety of Figure 2 is conventional.
Regardless, Appellant argues that
where the subject matter relied upon as purported “applicant
admitted prior art” is the work of the same inventive entity as the
claimed subject matter, the subject matter cannot be used to
reject the claims unless it falls under one of the statutory
categories of prior art under 35 USC § 102. MPEP § 2129. Each
of the Figures of the present application discloses a different

3 We note that paragraphs 19, 20, 22, 24, 26 refer to a “single column
refluxed absorber.” (See Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 24, 26.)
Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,873

7
example implementation of the presently disclosed technology
that are the work of the same inventive entity.

(Appeal Br. 7.)
We do not find this argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that “Appellant’s arguments alone that the AAPA is of the same
inventive entity is not considered evidence on the record to establish that it is
the work of the same inventive entity as the present application.”
(Answer 9.) Nor do we find evidence in the application, or otherwise in the
record, sufficient to support Appellant’s argument that the unit design of
Figure 2 was the work of the same inventive entity as that of the claimed
invention.
We agree with Appellant that Figure 2 is not explicitly marked as
prior art (Reply Br. 5), and that the discussion of Figure 2 does not appear in
the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” section of the Specification.
(Id.) Rather, it appears in the section titled “DETAILED DESCRIPTION.”
(Spec. ¶¶ 10, 16–19.) But Appellant does not direct us to any prohibition to
the discussion of prior art in the latter section. And, for the reasons
discussed above, we determine that the omission of explicit marking of
Figure 2 as prior art does not overcome the description in the Specification
of Figure 2 as conventional.
Appellant also argues that “[e]ach of the Figures of the present
application discloses a different example implementation of the presently
disclosed technology.” (Appeal Br. 7.)
The Specification discloses that “[t]he following examples of certain
embodiments of the invention are given. Each example is provided by way
of explanation of the invention, one of many embodiments of the invention,
Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,873

8
and the following examples should not be read to limit, or define, the scope
of the invention.” (Spec. ¶ 11.) However, it is only with respect to Figure 3
that the Specification discloses “nonlimiting embodiment[s]” (in
paragraphs 24 and 26), as well as a “nonlimiting method” (in paragraph 22).
Thus, the Specification discloses different embodiments/examples of the
invention shown in Figure 3. In view of this, we are not persuaded that
because the Specification discloses different examples of embodiments of
the design unit disclosed in Figure 3, the design unit of Figure 2 must not be
AAPA.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining that Figure 2 is AAPA.
The Examiner acknowledges that
AAPA Figure 2 does not explicitly disclose [(1)] that the
absorber 205 is a single column refluxed absorber and [(2)]
outputting the first overhead stream from the single column
refluxed absorber through a first condenser for partial separation
of the first overhead stream into heavies-treated natural gas. This
is disclosed by Mak (see figure 2, refluxed absorber 103 with
overhead condenser 104/105) or alternatively Mehra (see
figure 6, NGL [(natural gas liquids)] absorber 154 is a single
column refluxed absorber, see overhead 126 condensed
in 150/162 and refluxed as 168).

(Final Action 4–5.) Additionally, the Examiner finds that AAPA Figure 2
discloses “outputting the first bottoms stream from the absorber to a first
heat exchanger 207/210.” (Id. at 4.)
Appellant argues that “Mak is silent on a bottoms stream being output
from a single column refluxed absorber to a first heat exchanger.” (Appeal
Br. 8.) And that “Mehra is silent on a bottoms stream being output from a
single column refluxed absorber to a first heat exchanger.” (Id. at 8–9.)
Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,873

9
The Examiner answers that “[t]he Office does not take this position in
regards to the absorber bottoms,” i.e., the Final Action did not rely on either
Mak or Mehra to teach outputting a first bottoms stream from the absorber to
a first heat exchanger. (Answer 9–10.) Mak and/or Mehra were relied upon
here to teach use of a single column refluxed absorber. The Examiner
additionally explains that it “can be seen in Figure 2 where the bottom
stream passes to both 207 and 210 which are a reboiler and a heat
exchanger 210, and thus the bottom stream can be considered to go to a first
heat exchanger.” (Id. at 10.)
Appellant replies, apparently in response to the Examiner’s additional
explanation, that “[i]tem 207 in FIG. 2 is not a heat exchanger” (Reply
Br. 7), and that “it is the product stream 209 created by the reboiler 207 that
is then passed to the heat exchanger, not the bottom liquid stream 206
outputted from the absorber 205.” (Id.)
The Examiner treats the combination of reboiler 207 and heat
exchanger 210 as the heat exchanger fed the first bottoms stream, i.e., “the
bottom stream passes to both 207 and 210.” (Answer 10.) We do not agree.
Reboiler 207 separates vapor from the bottom liquid stream 206 and returns
the vapor to the absorber 205. It is the liquid bottom product stream 209
from the reboiler that is output to the heat exchanger 210. (Spec. ¶ 16.)
However, claim 1 requires “outputting the first bottoms stream from the
single column refluxed absorber to a first heat exchanger.” In AAPA
Figure 2, it is not the first bottoms stream output from the absorber that is
routed to the heat exchanger 210, rather it is the liquid bottom product
stream, which is only a portion of the first bottoms stream output. The
Examiner does not provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
Appeal 2021-003391
Application 15/925,873

10
as to why it would have been obvious, in view of Mak and Mehra, to modify
AAPA Figure 2 to output the first bottoms stream to the heat exchanger 210
(and subsequently output the first bottoms stream to the stabilizer 211). See
KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418.
Therefore, we will reverse the rejection of claim 1. For the same
reasons, we will reverse the rejection of independent claims 7, 12, and 13,
and dependent claims 2–6, 8–11, and 14–20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Specifically:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 AAPA, Mak, Mehra 1–20

REVERSED