Ex Parte Berggren et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 24, 201412264121 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/264,121 11/03/2008 Wouter Detlof Berggren TS1327 02 (US) 9532 23632 7590 10/24/2014 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER SEIFU, LESSANEWORK T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1774 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/24/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WOUTER DETLOF BERGGREN, FRANCISCUS GERARDUS VAN DONGEN, THIAN HOEY TIO, and PIETER LAMMERT ZUIDEVELD ____________ Appeal 2013-000058 Application 12/264,121 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a reactor vessel for performing a steam reforming reaction starting from a natural gas feedstock. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A reactor vessel for performing a steam reforming reaction comprising: a vessel inlet for natural gas and steam, a vessel inlet for hot gaseous medium, a vessel outlet for a gaseous product comprising the steam reforming product; and Appeal 2013-000058 Application 12/264,121 2 a reactor space having a reactor space inlet and a reactor outlet end, the reactor space comprising a plurality of reactor tubes filled with a bed of steam reforming catalyst, the reactor space inlet being fluidly connected to the inlet for natural gas and steam, and at the reactor space outlet end being fluidly connected with the outlet for the gaseous product; wherein inside each reactor tube a passageway running parallel to the axis of said reactor tube fluidly connects to the vessel inlet for the hot gaseous medium, the passage way being suitable for passage of hot gaseous mixture counter currently to a flow of reactants in the catalyst bed. Appellants request review of the following rejections (App. Br. 3) from the Examiner’s Final Action:1 I. Claims 1, 3, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Herbort (US 5,110,564, May 5, 1992). II. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Herbort and Williams (US 5,254,318, Oct. 19, 1993). OPINION Rejection I The first issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in determining that Herbort discloses a reactor vessel in which the reactor tube fluidly connects to the vessel inlet for the hot gaseous medium as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1? Appellants have only presented arguments for reversal of Rejection I with respect to claims 1 and 17 in their Appeal Brief. We, therefore, limit our discussion to claims 1 and 17. 1 The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appears in the Final Action mailed Oct. 11, 2011. Appeal 2013-000058 Application 12/264,121 3 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. Our reasons follow. The Examiner found that Herbort discloses a reactor vessel that anticipates the subject matter of claims 1 and 17. In particular, the Examiner found Herbort—referencing Figures 1 and 4—discloses a reactor vessel for performing a steam reforming reaction comprising a vessel inlet for natural gas and steam, a vessel inlet for a hot gaseous medium, and a vessel outlet for a gaseous product. The Examiner found the reactor space comprises a plurality of reactor tubes filled with a bed of steam reforming catalyst. The Examiner found the reactor space inlet is fluidly connected to the inlet for natural gas steam, and the reactor space outlet end is fluidly connected with the outlet for the gaseous product. The Examiner found inside each reactor tube a passageway runs parallel to the axis of the tube, which fluidly connects to the vessel inlet for the gaseous medium. (Final Act. 2–3). Appellants argue that Herbort does not anticipate the subject matter of independent claim 1. Appellants specifically state: The Herbort reference is directed to a device for accommodating catalyst especially in the production of synthesis gas. In this device, each individual primary catalyst tube is surrounded by a secondary catalyst and the primary catalyst tube extends in the form of a narrow feed tube through the secondary catalyst. See column 1, lines 43-47. While the narrow feed tubes do pass through tubes containing the secondary catalyst, the inlets of the narrow feed tubes are not fluidly connected to the vessel inlet for the hot gaseous medium. Rather, the inlets are attached to the outlets of the primary catalyst reactor tubes. (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2013-000058 Application 12/264,121 4 Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. The Examiner correctly found that Herbort’s Figure 1 exhibits narrow tubes (11a) are fluidly connected to the vessel inlet (5) of the reactor vessel via the hollow tube sheet (6). (Ans. 5). Appellants have not adequately explained how the gas stream that enters into the reaction vessel fails to travel through the narrow tubes (11a). The language “fluidly connected” does not preclude the gas stream from flowing through various other sections of the reactor. Claim 17 Appellants argue in Herbort does not teach that each tube and passageway can be individually removed through the top of the vessel so that the catalyst can be replaced or refreshed as required by the subject matter of claim 17. (Id. at 4). We agree with Appellants. The Examiner found column 2 lines 54 to 65 of Herbort teaches that the secondary catalyst tube (19) can be detachably mounted on the jacket tube (10). (Final Act. 3; Ans. 6). Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, this disclosure of Herbort does not disclose each tube and passageway can be individually removed through the top of the vessel as required by the subject matter of claim 17. Rejection II Regarding the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we affirm the rejection advanced by the Examiner. Appellants have presented arguments only to independent claim 1 (rejection discussed above) and have not otherwise presented separate arguments on the merits for the rejection of claim 4. In this regard, Appellants do not assert non-obviousness based on Appeal 2013-000058 Application 12/264,121 5 the limitations set forth in claim 4 by explaining how the applied prior art cited by the Examiner fails to establish the obviousness of the separately rejected claim. Because we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as to independent claim 1, it follows that these arguments are unpersuasive as to claim 4. ORDER The rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Herbort is affirmed. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated Herbort is reversed. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Herbort and Williams is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED-IN-PART cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation