Ex parte Birmingham

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 13, 1998

07861332 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 25, 1992. According to appellant,1
the application is a continuation of Application 07/569,657, filed August 20,
1990, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 36
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN M. BIRMINGHAM
_____________
Appeal No. 94-0786
Application 07/861,3321
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, PAK and WARREN, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JOHN D. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal pursuant to 35 USC § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 10 through 13.
Claim 10 and claim 13 are representative and are reproduced
below:
10. In a method for cracking dicyclopentadiene to
produce cyclopentadiene monomer, wherein molten dicyclopentadiene
Appeal No. 94-0786
Application 07/861,332
2
is combined with a body of heat transfer fluid maintained within
a reaction vessel at a temperature effective to convert
dicyclopentadiene to cyclopentadiene monomer vapor, the
improvement which comprises:
(i) agitating said body of heat transfer fluid
maintained in said reaction vessel;
(ii) introducing monomer and heat transfer fluid free
molten dicyclopentadiene into said agitated body of heat transfer
fluid,
wherein said introduction is made sufficiently below
the surface of said heat transfer fluid to provide substantially
complete conversion of said introduced dicyclopentadiene to
cyclopentadiene monomer vapor, and
wherein said agitation of said body of heat transfer
fluid facilitates said substantially complete conversion and the
escape of said monomer vapor from the surface of said agitated
body of heat transfer fluid;
(iii) rapidly removing said monomeric cyclopentadiene
vapor from the surface of said agitated body of heat transfer
fluid; and
(iv) directly condensing said removed monomeric
cyclopentadiene vapor to provide liquid cyclopentadiene monomer
wherein 98% to 100% of said molten dicyclopentadiene
introduced into said agitated body of heat transfer fluid in step
(ii) is converted into liquid cyclopentadiene monomer of 97% to
100% purity in step (iv), and
wherein negligible formation of high cyclopentadiene
polymers occur in said reaction vessel.
13. A system for converting 98% to 100% of a molten
dicyclopentadiene feed to liquid cyclopentadiene monomer of 97%
to 100% purity, which comprises:
(i) a reaction vessel to contain a body of heat
Appeal No. 94-0786
Application 07/861,332
3
transfer fluid therewithin;
(ii) means for establishing and maintaining a body of
heat transfer fluid contained within said reaction vessel at a
temperature effective to convert dicyclopentadiene to monomeric
cyclopentadiene monomer vapor;
(iii) means for agitating a body of heat transfer fluid
contained within said vessel;
(iv) means for introducing a monomer free molten
dicyclopentadiene feed below the surface of an agitated body of
heat transfer fluid contained in said reaction vessel;
(v) means for preheating dicyclopentadiene feed prior
to introduction thereof into said heat transfer fluid contained
in said reaction vessel;
(vi) means for rapidly removing monomeric
cyclopentadiene vapor from the surface of an agitated body of
heat transfer fluid contained in said reaction vessel; and
(vii) means for condensing monomeric cyclopentadiene
vapor removed from said reaction vessel to provide liquid
monomeric cyclopentadiene of 97% to 100% purity.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner are:
Kreps 2,831,904 Apr. 22, 1958
Robota 3,590,089 Jun. 29, 1971
Staff (Canadian Patent) 457,038 May 31, 1949
Oga et al. (Oga) 56-59719 May 23, 1981
(Japanese Kokai Patent)
References of record relied upon by appellant are:
Appeal No. 94-0786
Application 07/861,332
The examiner relies on the Canadian patent to Staff.2
4
Staff 2,453,044 Nov. 2, 1948
Robota 3,544,644 Dec. 1, 1970
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as
unpatentable over Kreps in view of Staff ; Robota ‘089 in view of2
Staff; or Oga in view of Staff.
We reverse the rejections as applied to appealed method
claims 10 through 12. We affirm the rejections as applied
against appealed ?system? claim 13.
This is the second appeal of claimed subject matter which is
directed to a method and a ?system? for cracking dicyclopen-
tadiene to produce cyclopentadiene monomer. In comparison with
the claims previously considered by the Board in the decision
entered January 22, 1996 (Paper No. 20), the appealed method
claims now require, inter alia, the introduction into a body of
heat transfer fluid of ?monomer and heat transfer fluid free?
molten dicyclopentadiene. This claim limitation, as argued by
appellant, further distinguishes the claimed process from the
specific systems such as the Kreps Figure 1 embodiment wherein
Appeal No. 94-0786
Application 07/861,332
5
dicyclopentadiene is combined with an auxiliary liquid (i.e., a
heat transfer fluid) prior to introduction into a reaction vessel
and Robota’s Example 1 embodiment wherein a 10:1 dicyclo-
pentadiene/oil mixture is utilized.
Additionally, as stressed by appellant, the now claimed
process recites the step of ?directly condensing? removed
monomeric cyclopentadiene vapor to provide liquid monomer, which
claim language excludes the partial condensing step essential to
Robota’s process. See Robota at column 3, lines 32 through 45
and column 3, line 42 and line 65 through 71.
Finally, the now claimed process is further limited by
?wherein? clauses indicating that 98% to 100% of introduced
molten dicyclopentadiene is converted to monomer of 97 to 100%
purity with negligible formation of high cyclopentadiene polymer
in the reaction vessel. It is not apparent that the Oga process
is capable of meeting these claimed requirements. See for
example the data reported in Table 2 of Oga in the translation at
page 11.
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
rejections of appealed process claims 10 through 12. On the
Appeal No. 94-0786
Application 07/861,332
6
other hand, we will sustain the rejections of appealed ?system?
claim 13. With respect to this claim, appellant acknowledges
(Brief, page 27) that
The method limitations, including steps (ii)
and (iv) of claim 10 a fortiori are not
affirmatively recited in the system claim 13.
For the reasons advanced in the Answer and the factual findings
cited in support thereof (particularly see the Answer at page 6),
we affirm the examiner’s rejections of ?system? claim 13.
In summary, the stated rejections against appealed process
claims 10 through 12 are reversed. The stated rejections against
appealed claim 13 are affirmed. The decision of the examiner,
accordingly, is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 94-0786
Application 07/861,332
7
)
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Edward S. Irons
Columbia Square
Suite 701 East Tower
555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004