Ex Parte Beeby et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

12866080 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
12/866,080 08/04/2010 Clive Beeby TS2093USAP 8994
23632 7590 09/01/2017
SHF! T OH miUPANY
EXAMINER
P O BOX 576 ALOSH, TAREQ M
HOUSTON, TX 77001-0576
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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 CLIVE BEEBY and MARIA ISABEL PARRA-CALVACHE
Appeal 2015-007771
Application 12/866,080
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007771
Application 12/866,080
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants Clive Beeby and Maria Isabel Parra-Calvache1 appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the
Final Office Action dated September 8, 2014 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims
1-14, 48, and 49.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an apparatus for cooling a cryogenic heat
exchanger adapted to liquefy a hydrocarbon stream. Claim 1, the only
independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below with disputed limitations
italicized for emphasis:
1. An apparatus for cooling down a cryogenic heat exchanger
adapted to liquefy a hydrocarbon stream, which cryogenic heat
exchanger is arranged to receive the hydrocarbon stream to be
liquefied and a refrigerant, to exchange heat between the
hydrocarbon stream and the refrigerant, thereby at least partially
liquefying the hydrocarbon stream, and to discharge the at least
partially liquefied hydrocarbon stream and spent refrigerant that
has passed through the cryogenic heat exchanger, the apparatus
comprising:
a refrigerant recirculation circuit to recirculate spent
refrigerant back to the cryogenic heat exchanger, the refrigerant
recirculation circuit comprising at least a compressor, a
compressor recycle valve, a cooler, at least one sensor, and a first
JT valve;
a programmable controller arranged to:
(i) receive input signals from the sensor of one or more
controlled variables;
1 Appellants identify Shell Oil Company as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief, dated March 9, 2015, at 2 (“Br.”).
2 Claims 15—47 are withdrawn from consideration. Br. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-007771
Application 12/866,080
(ii) produce control signals to control one or more
manipulated variables; and
(iii) execute a computer program, the computer program
comprising a network of at least three modules, wherein one or
more of the at least three modules receive a representations of
one or more of the input signals and produce representations of
one or more of the control signals;
and wherein each module of the at least three modules is
arranged to:
(a) wait until a trigger signal is received; and
(b) start executing a predetermined sequence of one or
more computer readable instructions upon receipt of the trigger
signal at least until a predetermined module target for that
module is reached;
and which modules in the network are interconnected such
that the trigger signal received by a second and a third module of
the at least three modules corresponds to a communication signal
that is generated upon the first module of the at least three
modules reaching the predetermined target for the first module.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Newton US 4,809,154 Feb. 28, 1989
Mandler US 5,791,160 Aug. 11, 1998
Hodges US 6,272,882 B1 Aug. 14, 2001
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11-14, 48, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mandler.
2. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mandler and Hodges.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
3
Appeal 2015-007771
Application 12/866,080
DISCUSSION
The Rejections of Claims 1—14, 48, and 49
Appellants argue claims 1—4, 7, 9, 11-14, 48, and 49 as a group. Br.
3-7. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-4, 7, 9, 11-
14, 48, and 49 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants do not specifically address the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, and 10
as unpatentable over Mandler and Hodges. The appeal of the second ground
of rejection turns on the outcome of our review of the rejection of claim 1,
from which claims 5, 6, 8, and 10 depend.
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Mandler’s modules that
calculate adjustment of SPEED and WJT VP correspond to the second and
third modules recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner,
Mandler does not explicitly disclose a first module, but “the apparatus of
Mandler must inherently have been placed into operation at an earlier point
in time as the apparatus has not been providing cooling for an infinite period
of time and, therefore, the opening of the valves (at least 16, 18) and
operation of the compressors (32, 34) of Mandler must have been performed
earlier.” Id. at 3. In other words, at some point in time, Mandler’s device
had to be triggered to start the operation. The Examiner determines it would
have been obvious
to provide at least a first module to control the initial opening of
the valves (16, 18) and initial operation of the compressors (32,
34) to the apparatus of Mandler, and further to have the first
module communicate a trigger signal to the second and third
modules upon completion of the initial operation of the valves
and compressors, in order to provide an automated start-up of the
apparatus of Mandler and to ensure control efficiency (by having
the second and third modules operate only as needed, i.e., after
start-up, rather than operating and potentially conflicting with the
4
Appeal 2015-007771
Application 12/866,080
automated start-up procedure provided by the first module),
thereby minimizing required user intervention to operate the
apparatus (i.e., as compared to an apparatus which would require
a user to manually operate the valves and compressors).
Id. at 4; see also id. at 7.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over
Mandler is erroneous for three primary reasons. First, Appellants argue that
Mandler does not disclose a first module because “Mandler’s system is for
steady-state control and only discloses steady-state operation” and “is not
about start-up.” Br. 4. Although Appellants concede that Mandler’s system
“must first go through some sort of start-up procedure,” Appellants contend
that “Mandler does not disclose any details about such a start-up procedure
and from Mandler alone one cannot even conclude that the skilled person
would know how to conduct such a start-up procedure, and certainly not to
conduct a start-up procedure according to claim 1.” Id.
In response, the Examiner correctly states that “the claims do not
require any start-up procedure.” Answer dated June 2, 2015, at 9 (“Ans.”).
We agree with the Examiner that “claim 1 only requires three modules
which execute a sequence of instructions upon receipt of a trigger signal at
least until some target for each module is achieved, and that the second and
third modules receive a trigger signal generated by the first module upon the
first module’s attainment of its own pre-determined target,” and “[njeither
claim 1, nor any other claim, further limits or otherwise requires that any of
these modules executes instructions for start-up.” Ans. 10. Appellants make
similar arguments that the “claimed invention involves sequential (not
steady state, but ‘progressive’) control” (Br. 3), and “automated start-up”
5
Appeal 2015-007771
Application 12/866,080
(Br. 6). These arguments are unpersuasive because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Furthermore, both the Examiner and Appellants acknowledge that
Mandler must be placed into operation before the control uses second and
third modules. Ans. 10, Br. 4. In this regard, the Examiner finds that “at
least the initial positions of the valves (at least 16, 18) and initial operation
of the compressors (32, 34) of Mandler must have occurred prior to the
control [of second and third modules],” and then concluded that “the mere
provision of a first module which controlled this inherent start-up of the
apparatus of Mandler would have been obvious for the purposes of
automation thereof and reducing user intervention.” Ans. 10; Final Act. 3-4.
Appellants’ argument that one skilled in the art would not know how to start
Mandler’s apparatus is unpersuasive, especially in view of Appellants’
acknowledgement that Mandler “must first go through some sort of start-up
procedure.” Br. 4. Appellants do not identify any error in the Examiner’s
findings.
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings regarding the
first module and an automated start-up are based on “impermissible
hindsight.” Br. 5. However, both the Examiner and Appellants
acknowledge that Mandler inherently must be placed into operation before
the control uses second and third modules. Ans. 10, Br. 4. In addition, the
Examiner identified Newton as disclosing “a similar ‘first module’ which
provides start-up control and a steady-state operation subsequent the start-up
to automate start-up of an apparatus and ensure control efficiency.” Final
Act. 7-8 (citing Newton 7:36-41). Appellants’ argument that “Newton is
not about start-up” (Br. 7) is unpersuasive because Newton explicitly
6
Appeal 2015-007771
Application 12/866,080
addresses “plant start-up” (see, e.g., Newton 7:39), and, as discussed above,
claim 1 does not recite start-up procedures. Appellants do not identify any
knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from
Appellants’ disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention, thereby obviating Appellants’
assertion of hindsight. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA
1971). Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Third, Appellants argue that Mandler does not disclose a trigger signal
as recited in claim 1 (Br. 4-5), and the trigger signal for the first module
cannot be Mandler’s “deviation, or error ofLNG temperature from an LNG
set point temperature” (Br. 6). The Examiner responds that Appellants
“have mistakenly conflated the trigger signals of the second and third
modules of Mandler identified by the Office, and the claimed trigger signal
generated by the first module.” Ans. 17. The Examiner correctly states that
“[Appellants’ argument is misguided as it has an anticipatory predication
whereas the rejection is based on obviousness.” Id. After finding that
Mandler did not explicitly disclose a first module, the Examiner determined
it would have been obvious “to provide at least a first module to control the
initial opening of the valves (16, 18) and initial operation of the compressors
(32, 34) to the apparatus of Mandler” (Final Act. 3^1), and “to have the first
module communicate a trigger signal to the second and third modules upon
completion of the initial operation of the valves and compressors” (Final
Act. 4 (emphasis added)). Appellants do not address the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner, and, thus, do not identify Examiner error.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 2-
14, 48, and 49 fall with claim 1.
7
Appeal 2015-007771
Application 12/866,080
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-14, 48,
and 49 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8