12332999 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2015)

Ex Parte Bliault et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 18, 2015

12332999 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2015)

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. 12/332,999 12/11/2008 Alan Edgar John Bliault TS9282 02 (US) 5561 23632 7590 09/21/2015 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER ALI, MOHAMMAD M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2015 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 THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALAN EDGAR JOHN BLIAULT, JAMES MILNE CUSITER, and ANDREW NEIL STEPHENS ____________ Appeal 2013-009093 Application 12/332,999 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 12, 16–19, 24, and 33–37.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. 1 As noted by Appellants, the Examiner does not provide a rejection for claims 20, 25, 28–32, and 38 (Br. 4). Therefore, these claims are not before us on appeal. Appeal 2013-009093 Application 12/332,999 2 THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a floating plant for treating hydrocarbons (Spec. 1, ll. 7–8). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for treating hydrocarbons comprising using a floating hydrocarbon treating plant comprising a vessel having a hull and a deck and comprising tanks located below the deck for storing hydrocarbons, and a plant for treating hydrocarbons located on the deck of the vessel, wherein the plant for treating hydrocarbons includes spaced-apart modules, wherein each module comprises related plant equipment mounted on a module floor, and each module is supported on at least two closed support girders on the deck, wherein the girders extend under the module in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the deck such that a blast resulting from an explosion of fluid on the deck below the module floor is directed by the closed support girders to the edge of the deck. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 4–6, 12, and 34–37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keith (US 3,161,492, iss. Dec. 15, 1964), Morrison (US 2,940,268, iss. June 14, 1960), and Salusbury-Hughes (US 4,753,185, iss. June 28, 1988). 2. Claims 1, 4–6, 16–19, 24, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the ground of statutory double patenting as claiming the same invention as claims 1, 4–6, 12–15, and 20 of Bliault (US 7,478,536 B2, iss. Jan. 20, 2009). Appeal 2013-009093 Application 12/332,999 3 FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. ANALYSIS Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claimed “closed support girders” or being capable of directing a blast to the edge of the deck (Appeal Br. 5–6). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the claimed girders are shown in Figure 5 of Salusbury-Hughes (Ans. 5–6). We agree with the Appellants. Claim 1 requires in part: at least two closed support girders on the deck, wherein the girders extend under the module in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the deck such that a blast resulting from an explosion of fluid on the deck below the module floor is directed by the closed support girders to the edge of the deck. (Emphasis added). Here, the cited claim limitation requires more than support girders, namely “closed support girders” that are positioned to direct a blast to the edge of the deck. Salusbury-Hughes at the portions cited does not specifically teach the claimed “closed support girders.” For example, Salusbury-Hughes at Figure 5 depicts some kind of support structure, but it is not evident from the Figure that the support structure necessarily includes the specifically claimed “closed support girders.” Further, the citations to Salusbury-Hughes do not 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2013-009093 Application 12/332,999 4 contain any specific disclosure regarding any closed support girders directing a blast “to the edge of the deck.” For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained. Independent claim 16 contains a similar limitation, and the rejection of claim 16 and its dependent claims is not sustained for the same reasons given above. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 The Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 16–19, 24, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is improper because the present claims are not identical to the claims of Bliault (Appeal Br. 7). According to Appellants, “[s]uch a floating hydrocarbon treating plant might infringe the claims of the '536 patent [Bliault] without literally infringing the instant claims” (id.). In contrast, the Examiner has found that claims 1, 4–6, 16–19, 24 and 33 of the present application claim the same invention as that of claims 1, 4– 6, 12–15, and 20 of Bliault. We agree with the Appellants. Claims 1, 4–6, 16–19, 24, and 33 of the present application do not claim identical subject matter as the claims of Bliault. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970) (explaining the legal standard for statutory double patenting). For example, independent claims 1 and 16 each recite “using a floating hydrocarbon treating plant,” and this limitation is not present in the claims of Bliault. Accordingly, we do not sustain the statutory double patenting rejection. Appeal 2013-009093 Application 12/332,999 5 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 12, 16–19, 24, and 33–37 is reversed. REVERSED cda