Ex Parte Angelides et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

13574807 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

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.
13/574,807 10/16/2012 Christos Odyssea Angelides TH 3949 US 5192
23632 7590
SHELL OIL COMPANY
P O BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
EXAMINER
NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2017 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOS ODYSSEA ANGELIDES
and BRADLEY DOUGLAS MORELLO1
Appeal 2016-003526
Application 13/574,807
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §6.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of removing
nitrous oxide (N2O) from a gas contaminated with N2O.
1 The real party in interest is Shell Oil Company (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-003526
Application 13/574,807
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A process for the removal of nitrous oxide (N2O)
from a gas stream containing a
contaminating concentration of nitrous oxide, wherein
said process comprises:
(a) passing said gas stream through a heat transfer zone
containing a heat transfer material of a high heat capacity
whereby heat is transferred from said heat transfer material to
said gas stream to thereby provide a heated gas stream;
(b) passing said heated gas stream to a reaction zone
containing a N2O decomposition catalyst that provides for the
decomposition of nitrous oxide and yielding therefrom a gas
stream having a reduced concentration of nitrous oxide;
(c) passing said gas stream having said reduced
concentration of nitrous oxide to a second reaction zone
containing a second N2O decomposition catalyst
wherein nitrous oxide is decomposed to yield a gas stream
having a further reduced concentration of nitrous oxide; and
(d) passing said gas stream having said further reduced
concentration of nitrous oxide to a second heat transfer zone
containing a second heat transfer material of a second high heat
capacity whereby heat is transferred from said gas stream
having said further reduced concentration of nitrous oxide to
said second heat transfer material to thereby provide a cooled
gas stream.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Chaouki et al. US 5,941,697 Aug. 24, 1999
Hotta US 2007/0292334 Al Dec. 20, 2007
Pieterse et al. US 2008/0044334 Al Feb. 21, 2008
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1—4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hotta in view of Chaouki. Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotta in view of
2
Appeal 2016-003526
Application 13/574,807
Chaouki and Pieterse. Claims 1—6 stand provisionally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same invention as claims 1—6 of copending
Application No. 13/698377.
Appellants’ arguments do not reveal harmful error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections. Hence, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections
for substantially the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and in the Answer.2 We add the following for emphasis.
Concerning the Examiner’s first stated (base) rejection, Appellants
argue the rejected claims together as a group and do not present separate
arguments for dependent claims 2-4 and 6. Moreover, Appellants rely on
the argument presented against the Examiner’s base rejection and do not
present any further argument against the Examiner’s separate rejection of
dependent claims 5 and 7.
Consequently, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which
we decide this appeal as to the Examiner’s base rejection, and which
decision based on claim 1 is also dispositive for the Examiner’s separate
rejection of dependent claims 5 and 7 on the argument record before us,
which focuses on claim 1 (App. Br. 4,11. 4—6; see App. Br. 3).
2 We do not reach the provisional rejection of claims 1—6 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same invention as claims 1—6 of copending
Application No. 13/698377. Because our affirmance of the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections is dispositive for all claims on appeal, we need not
reach the provisional rejection. Cf Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d
1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (having decided a single dispositive issue, the
ITC was not required to review other matters decided by the presiding
officer).
3
Appeal 2016-003526
Application 13/574,807
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s determination that (Final
Act. 3; see generally App. Br.):
Hotta teaches a process for the removal of nitrous oxide from a
gas stream containing a contaminating concentration of nitrous
oxide by passing the gas stream through a heat transfer zone
whereby heat is transferred to the gas stream to provide a
heated gas stream (Hotta, claim 1). Hotta teaches passing
said heated gas stream to a reaction zone containing nitrous
oxide decomposition catalyst that provides for the
decomposition of nitrous oxide and yielding therefrom a gas
stream having a reduced concentration of nitrous oxide (Hotta,
claim 1 and paragraph [0040]).
Moreover, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings that (1)
Hotta teaches or suggests that catalytic nitrous oxide decomposition is an
exothermic reaction and (2) Hotta teaches or suggests that the decomposition
reaction temperature control is needed for limiting NOx production,
efficiency of reaction, and prolonging catalyst life (Final Act. 13; see
generally App. Br.).
The Examiner finds that Chaouki teaches “a gas phase exothermic
reaction of a feed gas mixture in the presence of a catalyst which enables the
temperature of reaction to be controlled in a manner such as to prevent
the formation of hot spots, the generation of NOx, and the thermal
deactivation of the catalyst (Chaouki, Col. 1 lines 56-62)” (Final Act. 13).
The Examiner finds that Chaouki also teaches or suggests “any gaseous
mixture which can be reacted in the presence of a catalyst” can be employed
as a suitable feed gas mixture for Chaouki’s catalytic reaction technique,
which includes using multiple catalyst beds and wherein a regenerative heat
exchanger including high heat capacity materials is employed for preheating
the feed gas mixture and such a heat exchanger is used for cooling the
4
Appeal 2016-003526
Application 13/574,807
reacted gas mixture (Final Act. 13; see also Final Act. 3^1; Chaouki, col. 3,
11. 50-59, col. 4,11. 60-64, col. 6,11. 23-27; Fig. 1A).
Appellants do not particularly dispute the aforementioned findings
made by the Examiner concerning the teachings of Chaouki (App. Br. 3).
Rather, Appellants contend that Chaouki is directed to catalytic combustion
of combustible gases and “Chaouki does not teach or suggest that its process
is suitable for the decomposition of nitrous oxide” (App. Br. 3). Appellants
argue that unlike the nitrous oxide decomposition reaction of Hotta,
Chaouki’s catalytic combustion process is “highly exothermic”;
consequently, an ordinarily skilled artisan wound not have been led to
combine Hotta and Chaouki as proposed by the Examiner (id.).
However, as found by the Examiner, Chaouki’s reaction method
teachings are not restricted to a fuel gas combustion process but embrace the
use of “any other suitable gaseous mixture which can be reacted in the
presence of a catalyst” as a feed gas (col. 3,11. 57—59) and Hotta is directed
to an exothermic catalytic decomposition reaction of a feed gas including
nitrous oxide (Final Office Act. 13). In this regard, we further observe that
Appellants do not articulate how Chaouki’s teachings are limited to a highly
exothermic reaction that would not embrace exothermic nitrous oxide
decomposition. In particular, Appellants acknowledge that nitrous oxide
decomposition is an exothermic reaction (Spec. 8,11. 6—15).
Consequently, Appellants’ argument that “[i]t would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Hotta with
the teaching of Chaouki” is conclusory and Appellants do not particularly
address the findings of the Examiner with respect to the applied prior art
teachings and their commonalties (preheating feed gases through heat
5
Appeal 2016-003526
Application 13/574,807
integration, the need for controlling reaction temperature to provide good
catalyst life and limiting NOx production) (App. Br. 3—4).3
These unchallenged factual findings of the Examiner undergird the
Examiner’s proposed rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to modify Hotta’s process based on the teachings of
Chaouki in a manner that would have resulted in a process falling within the
scope of representative claim 1 and with a reasonable expectation of success
in so doing (Final Office Act. 13—14; Ans. 4—5).
It follows that we shall sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is affirmed.
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
3 Arguments that may have been presented in the Appeal Brief but were not
so presented are waived. Consequently, we do not consider the additional
argument presented for the first time in the Reply Brief.
6