Dow Global Technologies LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

14366611 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
14/366,611 06/18/2014 Lin Luo DOW 69992 PA 3892
133320 7590 11/03/2020
The Dow Chemical Company/Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Fifth Third Center
One South Main Street, Suite 1300
Dayton, OH 45402
EXAMINER
CEPLUCH, ALYSSA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
daytonipdocket@dinsmore.com
kimberly.koen@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIN LUO, DEVON C. ROSENFELD, and
ANDRZEJ M. MALEK

Appeal 2020-000600
Application 14/366,611
Technology Center 1700
BEFORE BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Dow Global
Technologies LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000600
Application 14/366,611

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A process for dehydrogenating alkane or alkylaromatic
compounds comprising:
(1) reconstituting an at least partially deactivated
dehydrogenation catalyst by
(a) obtaining a dehydrogenation catalyst comprising
platinum and gallium on an alumina-based support, the
dehydrogenation catalyst having been previously fresh but
having become at least partially deactivated by the selective
removal of platinum from the dehydrogenation catalyst;
(b) impregnating the at least partially deactivated
dehydrogenation catalyst with a solution consisting of a
platinum salt in water to form an impregnated dehydrogenation
catalyst; and
(c) calcining the impregnated dehydrogenation catalyst at
a temperature ranging from 400°C to 1000°C;
(b) and ( c) being carried out under conditions suitable to
form a reconstituted dehydrogenation catalyst having (i) a
platinum content ranging from I part per million, based on
weight of catalyst, to 500 parts per million, based on weight of
catalyst; (ii) a gallium content ranging from 0.2 wt% to 2.0
wt%; and (iii) a ratio of platinum to gallium ranging from
1:20,000 to 1:4; and
(2) contacting, in a fluidized bed, an alkane compound or
an alkylaromatic compound with at least a portion of the
reconstituted dehydrogenation catalyst,
wherein the reconstituted dehydrogenation catalyst
further exhibits a platinum retention greater than or equal to the
platinum retention of a fresh dehydrogenation catalyst when
each is used in the same or another, otherwise identical
dehydrogenation process.

Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-000600
Application 14/366,611

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Oleck US 3,140,264 July 7, 1964
Voskoboynikov US 2003/0191351 A1 Oct. 9, 2003
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 USC §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Voskoboynikov in view of Oleck.
OPINION
Appellant argues claim 1 (Appeal Br. 2). Therefore, consistent with
the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion
to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal stand or fall together with claim 1.
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellant’s claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons set
forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and affirm, and add the
following for emphasis.
We refer to the Examiner’s statement of the rejection as set forth on
pages 3–7 of the Answer.
On page 5 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that the applied art
does not teach that the deactivation of the catalyst is by selective removal of
platinum from the dehydrogenation catalyst as recited in claim 1. We agree
with the Examiner’s stated response made on pages 7–8 of the Answer.
Appeal 2020-000600
Application 14/366,611

4
Therein, the Examiner states that the combination of Voskoboynikov and
Oleck teaches the removal of platinum from the catalyst. The Examiner
states that Voskoboynikov teaches a catalyst comprising platinum (¶ [0017])
which is utilized in a dehydrogenation process (¶ [0011]) to produce a spent
catalyst which can be regenerated (¶ [0050])). The Examiner relies upon
Oleck for teaching a platinum-containing catalyst having a dehydrogenation
function that can be regenerated by removing coke and impregnating the
catalyst with platinum (column 1, lines 10-11, column 2, lines 12-13). The
Examiner states that Oleck teaches that the platinum is added during the
impregnation step in an amount approximately equal to the platinum content
of the initial catalyst (column 3, lines 40-43). The Examiner concludes that
one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have determined that a
spent platinum catalyst which has dehydrogenation activity would have lost
platinum, such that in order to rejuvenate it an amount of platinum is added
so that the amount is equal to the content of the original catalyst, as taught
by Oleck. The Examiner finds that Voskoboynikov also teaches a similar
dehydrogenation process with a catalyst comprising platinum and gallium to
the claimed catalyst and process, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably have concluded that the catalyst of Voskoboynikov is deactivated
by selective removal of platinum, as claimed. We agree.
With regard to Appellant’s arguments that Oleck describes a catalyst
which consists essentially of platinum, and therefore Oleck cannot teach
selective removal of platinum (Appeal Br. 6), we are unpersuaded by such
argument for the reasons provided by the Examiner on pages 8–9 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner states that the combination of
Appeal 2020-000600
Application 14/366,611

5
Voskoboynikov (which teaches a catalyst comprising platinum and gallium
as claimed), with the teachings of Oleck of impregnating the catalyst to
have an amount approximately equal to the original platinum content, are
used together. The Examiner states that the teaching of Oleck to add
platinum back to the deactivated catalyst in an amount to be approximately
equal to the original platinum content shows that platinum is removed from
the catalyst when deactivated. Ans. 9. The Examiner states that one skilled
in the art would reasonably have concluded that the removal of platinum
from Voskoboynikov would occur in a similar manner as the catalyst of
Oleck, because both catalysts comprise platinum and a dehydrogenation
function.
With regard to Appellant’s arguments that Oleck teaches away from
the selective removal of platinum because the methods of Oleck teach that
the platinum remains present on the catalyst during and even after
regeneration (Appeal Br. 7), we are unpersuaded by such argument for the
reasons provided by the Examiner on pages 9–10 of the Answer. Therein,
the Examiner states that the teaching of Oleck discloses only that the
rejuvenation does not remove platinum from the catalyst (column 7, lines
45-48: “[a] method for rejuvenating a spent . . . platinum catalyst containing
platinum . . . in place in the reactor vessel without effecting removal of
platinum therefrom . . .”). We agree with the Examiner that this statement
teaches nothing about how the catalyst became spent (deactivated) in the
first place, but only recites that the rejuvenation does not remove platinum
from the catalyst. Ans. 10. The Examiner states that the instant claims do
not recite the removal of platinum during rejuvenation, and as such this
Appeal 2020-000600
Application 14/366,611

6
statement in Oleck is not a teaching away from the claimed invention. The
Examiner reiterates that Oleck teaches adding platinum to the spent catalyst
in an amount approximately equal to that of the initial catalyst (column 3,
lines 40-43). The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the
art would reasonably have concluded that the deactivation to produce the
spent catalyst includes selective removal of platinum, such that the amount
of platinum added makes it back to the initial amount of platinum. An.s. 10.
The Examienr states that the process of Voskoboynikov in view of Oleck
teaches a similar catalyst comprising platinum and gallium used in a
similar process of deactivation to produce a spent catalyst and is rejuvenated
in a similar manner by impregnation with platinum, and thus one would have
reasonably concluded that the catalyst of Voskoboynikov in view of Oleck is
deactivated in a similar manner, by selective removal of platinum as
claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to Appellant’s argument that the combination of
Voskoboynikov and Oleck is improper as there is no motivation or reasoning
for why to make the suggested modifications (Appeal Br. 7), we agree with
the Examiner’s stated reply on pages 10–11, and are unpersuaded by this
line of argument for the reasons stated therein.
In response to Appellant’s arguments that impermissible hindsight
was used to combine Oleck with Voskoboynikov (Appeal Br. 8), we are
unpersuaded by this line of argument for the reasons stated by the Examiner
on pages 11–12 of the Answer.
In response to Appellant’s arguments that because Voskoboynikov
teaches three essential features, two of which are not present in Oleck, one
Appeal 2020-000600
Application 14/366,611

7
of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the references
(Appeal Br. 8), we refer to the Examiner’s stated reply made on pages 12–13
of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner states that Voskoboynikov teaches a
catalyst which comprises platinum, gallium, and an alkali or alkaline earth
metal, while Oleck teaches a catalyst that “consists essentially of” platinum.
The Examiner states that it is not persuasive that these differences would
mean that the combination is improper. The Examiner states that
Voskoboynikov teaches regeneration of the platinum and other metals
containing catalyst, but does not teach the specific process for regeneration;
thus there is no recitation in Voskoboynikov that restricts the regeneration
procedure which can be utilized. Ans. 13. The Examiner states that Oleck
teaches regeneration of a catalyst which “consists essentially of” platinum,
however, Oleck does not define what is “essential” with this catalyst, and
what elements would be excluded within this recitation. Notably, Appellant
does not make the case that the kinds of components in Voskoboynikov are
excluded from the catalyst in Oleck. Thus, as the Examiner posits, it has not
been shown that the catalyst in Oleck cannot include other components such
as the gallium and alkali or alkaline earth metal of Voskoboynikov. Ans.
13–14.
In response to Appellant’s statements made on page 10 of the Appeal
Brief regarding the effects demonstrated in Appellant’s Specification, we
agree with the Examiner’s stated response made on pages 15 of the Answer.
To the extent Appellant alleges unexpected results, Appellant has not
explained the available data sufficiently to meet Appellant’s burden. In re
Appeal 2020-000600
Application 14/366,611

8
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d
1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5 103 Voskoboynikov,
Oleck
1-5
Overall
Outcome
1-5

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED