Ex Parte Buijs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2016

11632137 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/632, 137 01/10/2007 Cornelis Buijs
23632 7590 04/15/2016
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TS8612US 3916
EXAMINER
PETTITT, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2016 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 CORNELIS BUIJS,
ROBERT KLEIN NAGELVOORT, and
JOHAN JAN BAREND PEK
Appeal2014-003223
Application 11/632,137
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Comelis Buijs et al. (Appellants) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 23, 28-33, 35,
and 38--42. Claims 17, 18, 34, 36, and 37 are withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of treating liquefied natural gas.
Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal2014-003223
Application 11/632,137
2. A method of treating liquefied natural gas supplied at
liquefaction pressure containing components having low boiling
points to obtain a liquid product stream having a reduced content
of components having low boiling points, which method
comprises the steps of:
(a) allowing the liquefied natural gas to expand to
separation pressure to obtain an expanded two-phase fluid;
(b) introducing the expanded two-phase fluid into a
column below a gas-liquid contacting section arranged in the
column;
( c) collecting in the bottom of the column liquid from the
two-phase fluid and withdrawing from the bottom of the column
a liquid stream having a reduced content of components having
low boiling points; introducing the liquid stream into a flash
vessel at a low pressure; removing a second gaseous stream from
the top of the flash vessel; and removing from the bottom of the
flash vessel a liquid stream to obtain the liquid product stream;
( d) allowing vapor from the two-phase fluid to flow
through the contacting section;
( e) withdrawing from the top of the column a gaseous
stream at a temperature of less than -142QC that is enriched in
components having low boiling points;
( f) heating the gaseous stream obtained in step ( e) in a heat
exchanger to obtain a heated gaseous stream;
(g) compressing the heated gaseous stream obtained in
step (f) to fuel gas pressure to obtain fuel gas;
(h) separating a recycle stream from the fuel gas obtained
in step (g);
(i) at least partly condensing the recycle stream obtained
in step (h) to obtain a reflux stream; and
U) introducing the reflux stream obtained in step (i) at
separation pressure into the column above the contacting section,
the method further comprising heating the second gaseous
stream in said heat exchanger; compressing the second gaseous
stream; and adding at least part of the second gaseous stream to
the recycle stream.
2
Appeal2014-003223
Application 11/632,137
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Thomas
Foglietta
Wilkinson
Bro stow
Paradowski
us 6,023,942
US 2002/0157538 Al
US 2002/0166336 Al
US 2004/0231359 Al
US 6,898,949 B2
REJECTIONS
Feb. 15,2000
Oct. 31, 2002
Nov. 14, 2002
Nov. 25, 2004
May 31, 2005
I. Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 23, 28, 30-33, 35, and 38--42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Paradowski and
Brostow.
II. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Paradowski, Brostow, and Thomas.
III. Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 23, 28, 30-33, 35, and 38--42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Paradov,rski, Brostow,
and Foglietta.
IV. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Paradowski, Brostow, Foglietta, and Thomas.
V. Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 23, 28, 30-33, 35, and 38--42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Paradowski, Brostow,
and Wilkinson.
VI. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Paradowski, Brostow, Wilkinson, and Thomas.
VII. Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 23, 28, 30-33, 35, and 38--42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Paradowski and
Wilkinson.
3
Appeal2014-003223
Application 11/632,137
Vlll. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Paradowski, Wilkinson, and Thomas.
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Paradowski discloses all of the limitations of
independent claims 2 and 39 except for "introducing the expanded two-
phase fluid into a column below a gas-liquid contacting section arranged in
the column" and "introducing the reflux stream obtained in step (i) at
separation pressure into the column above the contacting section." Final
Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that "a column is a separate vessel having a
mass contacting structure therein and that such columns are well known in
the art." Id. The Examiner further finds that Brostow teaches "introducing
an expanded two phase fluid into a column below a gas-liquid contacting
section arranged in the column ... [and] a reflux stream that is introduced
into the column above the contacting section and at the pressure of the
column." Id. at 4 (citations omitted). Based on these findings, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to replace the separator of
Paradowski with a distillation column, such as Brostow' s column, "for the
purpose of providing increased separation efficiency and for the purpose of
providing more effective nitrogen rejection." Id.
Appellants argue that the Office Action makes no assertion that the
reflux stream is introduced at a separation pressure and "it seems as though
the Office Action attempts to assert that the reflux is inherently at the
pressure of the column of Brostow." Br. 9. Appellants contend that "any
assertion that the reflux 'must' be at about the pressure of the column 'in
4
Appeal2014-003223
Application 11/632,137
order for the stream to be admitted into the column' is baseless." Id.
Appellants further argue that "it is not only possible, but quite common for a
stream to be admitted into a receptacle when a pressure differential is
present." Id.
The Examiner responds that that the pressure of the distillation
column is a separation pressure because the object of distillation is to
separate components into gas and liquid phases. Ans. 21. The Examiner
reasons that:
since Bro[]stow teaches the reflux (45 after valve 47) is at the
same pressure as the overhead stream ( 15) withdrawn from the
column (7) ... the reflux stream (45, 307, 409, 603 after
expansion) is at a "separation pressure" since it is at the
pressure of the column (7).
Id. (citing Brostow i-fi-f 117 and 118).
Appellants' Specification defines separation pressure as the pressure
"to obtain an expanded two-phase fluid." Spec. 2, 11. 30-31. The Examiner
has correctly noted that the column in Brostow is at a pressure to obtain an
expanded two-phase fluid, i.e., a separation pressure, and the pressure at
which the overhead stream is withdrawn from the column reflects the
separation pressure. See Ans. 21. Brostow explicitly states that this pressure
is 141 psia. Brostow i-f 117. Thus, we understand that a separation pressure
of Brostow's column is 141 psia. Brostow further states that the pressure of
the reflux stream is 141 psia. Id. i-f 118. Thus, Brostow discloses a reflux
stream at the same pressure as a separation pressure. Accordingly,
Appellants' arguments are unconvincing.
Appellants further contend that the proposed combination is based on
hindsight reasoning. See Appeal Br. 10. In support of this contention,
Appellants argue that the problems articulated by the Examiner in support of
5
Appeal2014-003223
Application 11/632,137
the proposed combination are "but a few of a countless number of areas one
might wish to improve" and "such problems cannot be used in a single-
dimensional mindset to provide motivation to modify." Appeal Br. 10.
Appellants' argurnents are not persuasive as they 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. See Jn re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d
1392 (CCPA 1971).
In addition, Appellants argue that
it should be noted that the person of ordinary skill in the art is not
an automaton who will single-mindedly seek out modifications
to optimize one variable at the expense of all other variables.
Rather, the person of ordinary skill in the art balances conflicting
goals to find a balanced solution.
Appeal Br. 10. Notwithstanding the fact that Appellants' quotation from
KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) is taken out of context,
Appellants are correct that "[a] given course of action often has
simultaneous advantages and disadvantages." Winner Int'! Royalty Corp. v.
Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). However, as further
explained in Winner, "[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the
expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to
modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.
Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one
another." Id. at 1349. In this case the Examiner has identified advantages of
the proposed combination (see Final Act. 3--4), and Appellants merely argue
that there are disadvantages that outweigh the identified advantages without
identifying what those disadvantages are. However, an attorney's arguments
in a brief cannot take the place of evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
6
Appeal2014-003223
Application 11/632,137
1405 (CCPA 1974). Thus, Appellants' arguments are unconvincing.
Similarly, Appellants' assertion that the problems articulated by the
Examiner would not motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Paradowski because the disclosed system is already balanced is simply
attorney argument, unsupported by evidence. See Appeal Br. 10-11.
Next, Appellants argue that there is no evidence that one considering
the teachings of Paradowski would have been concerned with the problems
suggested by the Examiner. Id. at 11. We are not aware of any requirement
that a reference used to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must be
concerned with the problem that the proposed rejection solves. "In
determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither
the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellants]
controls." KSR, 550 U.S. at 419; see also In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016
(CCP A 1972).
Appellants further argue that "a claimed invention may nevertheless
be non-obvious if the problem which had suggested the modification was not
previously known." Id. at 11. Appellants have provided no support or
evidence that the problems of separation efficiency and efficient nitrogen
rejection were previously unknown or of no concern to one of ordinary skill
in the art. Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvincing.
Appellants additionally argue that the obvious to try rationale cannot
properly be used to support a conclusion of obviousness when there are an
infinite number of possible solutions to the alleged problem. Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner has not relied upon an obvious to try rationale, and, therefore,
Appellants' argument is inapposite.
7
Appeal2014-003223
Application 11/632,137
For these reasons, we do sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claims 2 and 39, and claims 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 23, 28, 30-33, 35,
38, and 40-42, which depend therefrom.
Rejection II
Claim 29 depends from claim 2. Appellants do not provide separate
arguments for the patentability of claim 29. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's decision rejecting claim 29 for the reason discussed supra.
Rejections III-VI
As we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 12-
14, 23, 28, 30-33, 35, and 38--42 based on the combined teachings of
Paradowski and Brostow, we also sustain the rejection of these claims based
on the combined teachings of Paradowski, Brostow, and Foglietta or
Wilkinson. For the same reasons, as we sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claim 29 based on the combined teachings of Paradowski, Brostow,
and Foglietta or Wilkinson, and Thomas.
Re} ections VII and VIII
Having sustained the rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 23, 28, 30-
33, 35, and 38--42 based on three separate grounds of rejection, we need not
reach the alternative rejection of these claims based on the combined
teachings of Paradowski and Wilkinson. Similarly, having sustained the
rejection of claim 29 based on three separate grounds of rejection, we need
not reach the alternative rejection of claim 29 based on the combined
teachings of Paradowski, Wilkinson, and Thomas.
8
Appeal2014-003223
Application 11/632,137
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 23, 28-33, 35,
and 38--42 are AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED
9