CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 6, 2021

2020004468 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 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.
15/170,338 06/01/2016 Ramesh SHARMA 42302US02 9993
85937 7590 07/06/2021
Boulware & Valoir
Tamsen Valoir
2603 Augusta Drive
Suite 1350
Houston, TX 77057
EXAMINER
KEYWORTH, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2021 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):
mwhite@boulwarevaloir.com
nseigel@boulwarevaloir.com
patent@boulwarevaloir.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
Ex parte RAMESH SHARMA, TRAVIS DINSDALE,
AMBER J. TAYLOR, BABAJIDE KOLADE, and
JAY LOCKLEAR
_______________
Appeal 2020-004468
Application 15/170,338
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT., Administrative Patent Judges.

DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 and 16 of Application 15/170,338.
See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 1, 2016 (“Spec.”)
of Application 15/170,338 (“the ’338 Application”); the Non-Final Office
Action dated July 5, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Feb. 7, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Apr. 16, 2020 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief filed May 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies ConocoPhillips Company as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004468
Application 15/170,338

2
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
According to Applicant, Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is
an enhanced oil recovery technology for producing heavy crude oil and
bitumen. Spec. ¶ 3. High pressure steam is injected into an upper wellbore
to heat the oil and reduce its viscosity, causing the heated oil to gravity drain
into a lower well bore, where it can be pumped to the surface. Spec. ¶ 3. A
once-through steam generator (OTSG) is commonly used to provide steam
for SAGD. Spec. ¶ 7. The steam goes through a series of liquid-steam
separators to increase the steam quality. Spec. ¶ 8. Water that is separated
from the steam is called “blowdown” water in the petroleum industry. Spec.
¶ 9. Applicant indicates that recycling of blowdown water is an absolute
necessity, thus there is a need for an improved cost effective treatment of
blowdown water prior to recycling. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 12.
The ’338 Application relates to a method of eliminating or minimizing
the fouling-causing contaminants of OTSG blowdown that is recycled after
treatment as boiler feedwater. Spec. ¶ 13.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’338 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix.
1. A method of treating once through steam generator
(OTSG) blowdown water for reuse, said method comprising:
a) providing OTSG blowdown water having acid
insoluble organics therein;
b) acidifying said OTSG blowdown water to pH 8 or
lower;
c) cooling said OTSG blowdown water to 30-40°C;
Appeal 2020-004468
Application 15/170,338

3
d) settling precipitants out of said OTSG blowdown
water for at least 12 hours to produce an acid clarified
blowdown water having more than 50% of the acid insoluble
organics removed; and
e) reusing said acid clarified blowdown water.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
McLeod US 2009/0308745 A1 Dec. 17, 2009
Astlely et al.
(“Astley”)
US 2011/0127223 A1 June 2, 2011
Bansal et al.
(“Bansal”)
US 2013/0292115 A1 Nov. 7, 2013
Cote et al. (“Cote”) US 2014/0231359 A1 Aug. 21, 2014
Frohlich et al.
(“Frohlich”)
US 2016/0159668 A1 June 9, 2016
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103:
A. Claims 1–4 over Bansal in view of Cote;
B. Claims 5–11 over Bansal in view of Cote, further in view of
Frohlich;
C. Claim 12 over Bansal in view of Cote, further in view of
Astley; and
D. Claim 16 over Bansal in view of Frohlich, Cote, and McLeod.
Final Act. 2–7.
Appeal 2020-004468
Application 15/170,338

4
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant 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 [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–12 and 16. Thus,
we reverse the Examiner’s rejections.
Claims 1–12 require settling precipitants out of the OTSG blowdown
water for at least 12 hours. Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims App.). Claim 16
requires passively clarifying the blowdown water by settling. Id. at 14. Our
opinion focuses on these limitations.
The Examiner finds that Bansal teaches a method of treating OTSG
blowdown water comprising, inter alia, separating the solids from the liquid
via a centrifuge. Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner acknowledges that Bansal
does not teach that solids and precipitants are settled out for at least 12
hours. Id. at 3. However, the Examiner finds that “Cote teaches that in
separation of a [sic] solids from a liquid, various devices are considered to
be equivalents. Such various devices would include clarifiers, settling
ponds, and centrifuges.” Id. (citing Cote ¶ 23); see also Ans. 4 (stating that
Cote “explicitly considers centrifuges and settling ponds to be equivalents”).
The Examiner finds that centrifuges and settling apparatuses both use
settling as the means to separate solids from liquids. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-004468
Application 15/170,338

5
According to Appellant, Bansal is directed to removing silica from
blowdown water. Appeal Br. 1. In addition, Appellant argues that Cote
does not teach that pond settling is “equivalent” to Bansal’s high speed
centrifuging. Reply Br. 1; see also Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that
Bansal teaches use of high pressure centrifuges that exert 3000-3500 times
the force exerted in a settling pond. Appeal Br. 7–9.
Cote discloses that solids generated during wastewater processing of a
phosphogypsum pond processes “may be removed by one or more suitable
solids separation devices such as a clarifier, settling pond, lamella clarifier,
upflow sludge blanket clarifier, disk filter, centrifuge, vacuum filter,
dissolved air floatation device or the like.” Cote ¶ 23 (emphasis added).
Cote’s statement that “one or more” of these separation devices may be used
indicates that settling and centrifuges are both solids separation devices, but
not that they are equivalent. Instead, the suggestion is that settling and
centrifugation are complementary approaches that may be used in
combination.
Bansal teaches centrifuging the acidified suspension at a pressure of at
least 138 kilopascals. Bansal ¶ 8. Bansal teaches that soluble organics in
the blowdown that are precipitated by acidification define oily, organic laden
and deformable masses. Id. ¶ 21. The smaller size and relative softness of
the solids in Bansal limit the ability to separate liquid and solid phases by
conventional centrifuging or hydrocycles. Id. Moreover, the organics
further limit ability to utilize filtering since the particles tend to stick
together agglomerating and clogging filter media. Id.
“That two things are actually equivalents, in the sense that they will
both perform the same function, is not enough to bring into play the rule that
Appeal 2020-004468
Application 15/170,338

6
when one of them is in the prior art the use of the other is obvious and
cannot give rise to patentable invention.” In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 596–97
(CCPA 1958). To rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an
obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art,
and cannot be based on an applicant's disclosure or the mere fact that the
components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. Id.
The Examiner erred by finding that the prior art recognizes settling
and centrifugation as equivalents. Indeed, Bansal indicates that settling
would not work in its process. See Bansal ¶ 21. Contrary to the Examiner’s
finding, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be expected to
substitute settling for Banal’s high pressure centrifugation. When the
references cited by the examiner fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, the rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1–12
and 16.

Appeal 2020-004468
Application 15/170,338

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 103 Bansal, Cote 1–4
5–11 103 Bansal, Cote, Frohlich 5–11
12 103 Bansal, Cote, Astley 12
16 103 Bansal, Frohlich, Cote, McLeod 16
Overall
Outcome 1–12, 16
REVERSED