Ex Parte Clark et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 3, 201613042004 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/042,004 03/07/2011 25570 7590 05/05/2016 Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, PC 7918 Jones Branch Drive Suite 500 McLean, VA 22102 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael C. Clark 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. 2005B034/3 [ 400008-20008C] 613 8 EXAMINER DANG, THU AND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1772 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/05/2016 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): lgallaugher@rmsclaw.com docketing@rmsclaw.com dbeltran@rmsclaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL C. CLARK and BRIAN MAERZ Appeal2014-006478 Application 13/042,004 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants 1 request review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, and 12-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 The Appellants state that the Real Party in Interest is "BADGER LICENSING LLC" (Appeal Brief filed January 14, 2014, hereinafter "Appeal Br.," 1 ). Appeal 2014-006478 Application 13/042,004 The subject matter on appeal relates to a process for producing an alkylated aromatic compound in predominantly a liquid phase alkylation reactor with an alkene feedstock containing alkene and specified amounts of alkane without inter-zone alkane removal (Specification, hereinafter "Spec.," i-f 14; originally-filed claim 1 at Spec. 22). Details of the process for producing the alkylated aromatic compound are recited in representative claim I-the sole independent claim on appeal, which we reproduce from page 19 of the Appeal Brief (Claims App.) (emphases added), as follows: 1. A process for producing an alkylated aromatic compound in a reactor having a plurality of reaction zones including a first reaction zone and a second reaction zone, said process comprising the steps of: (a) introducing a first feedstock and a second feedstock to said first reaction zone, wherein said first feedstock comprises an al,"'o'latable aromatic compoitnd, \~1herein said second feedstock comprises an alkene and at least 1 wt.% alkane, said first reaction zone maintained under conditions such that said first reaction zone is predominately liquid phase having at least 95 wt.% liquid phase; (b) contacting said first feedstock and said second feedstock with a first catalyst in said first reaction zone to produce a first effluent, wherein at least 90 mole percent the alkene present in said first feedstock is converted and said first effluent comprises an alkylated aromatic compound and alkane; ( c) cooling said first effluent through a heat exchanger without separation of said alkane from said first effluent; ( d) supplying at least a portion of said cooled first effluent and a third feedstock to said second reaction zone, wherein said third feedstock has the same composition as said second feedstock, said second reaction zone maintained under conditions such that said second reaction zone is predominately 2 Appeal 2014-006478 Application 13/042,004 liquid phase having at least 95 wt.% liquid phase; and ( e) contacting said at least a portion of said cooled first effluent and said third feedstock with a second catalyst in said second reaction zone to produce a second effluent; wherein said second reaction zone is operated to achieve essentially complete conversion of the alkene, wherein said alkylated aromatic compound comprises ethylbenzene, said alkylatable aromatic compound of said first feedstock consists of benzene and optionally ethyl benzene and cumene, and said second feedstock and said third feedstock comprise a mixture of ethylene and ethane. In addition to claim 1, claim 12 and claims 14--1 7 are argued separately under two separate headings, respectively (Appeal Br. 17- 18). THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follov,rs: I. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, and 12-17 as unpatentable over Schulz et al. (Schulz). 2' 3 (Examiner's Answer entered March 11, 2014, hereinafter "Ans.," 2-3; Final Office Action entered July 24, 2013, hereinafter "Final Act.," 3--4.) 2 US 6,281,399 B 1 issued August 28, 2001. 3 In the Answer at page 2, the Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre- AIA), first paragraph, rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9 and 12-17. 3 Appeal 2014-006478 Application 13/042,004 DISCUSSION With respect to representative claim 1, the Examiner finds: Schulz discloses a process of alkylation of benzene with an alkylating feed containing propene and from 0 to 50% propane in a series of reaction zones containing zeolite such as MCM-22 as the catalyst. The effluent from the reaction zone withdrawn from the reaction zone is cooled without any separation and then is fed to the next reaction zone with adding another alkylating feed having the same composition as the former alkylating agent (the abstract; the figures). (Final Act. 3--4). The Examiner also finds that "Schulz discloses the conversion of olefin complete [sic] (col. 9, lines 29-31 )" (id. at 3) and that "Schulz discloses liquid alkylation condition[s] (col. 9, lines 53-55)" (id. at 4). With regards to claim 1, the Appellants contend that "Schulz et al. fail to disclose or suggest cooling a first effluent through a heat exchanger without separation of alkane from said first effluent" as required by step ( c) of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7). The Appellants also contend that "the Schulz et al. alkylation zone feedstock, equivalent to the 'first feedstock' of the present claims, undeniably includes alkylatable compounds which are not limited to benzene, ethylbenzene and cumene, as per claim 1" (id. at 10). We address each of these issues below. 1. Whether Schulz describes "cooling said first effluent through a heat exchanger without separation of said alkane from said first effluent" as required by claim 1 The Appellants argue that "[t]he only lines to the first alkylation reactor 110 are benzene lines 162 and 172, propylene line 151, transalkylation effluent line 144, and alkylation effluent line 136" (Appeal 4 Appeal 2014-006478 Application 13/042,004 Br. 8) (referring to Schulz, Fig. 2 and col. 17, 1. 3 8---col. 18, 1. 10). Thus, according to the Appellants, Schulz "never discloses or suggests intentionally passing an alkane into the alkylation reactor 11 O" contrary to the limitations of claim 1 ( c) (id.). The Examiner finds, however, that "Schulz clearly discloses that [the] propylene stream of the process contains from 0 to about 50 wt.% propane (see col. 10, lines 4-6)" and that, as disclosed further in Schulz's column 18, lines 14--20, "'the depropanizer 130 removes propane and other light ends which may have entered the process with the makeup propylene stream 152 and 118 "' (Ans. 4 ). Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that "any amount of propane entering the process with propylene stream 152 (propane is expected to remain unreacted in the first alkylation reactor 110) would go through without separation [to] cooler 114 to the alkylation zone 120" (id.). We have fully considered the Appellants' arguments; however, we find the arguments do not reveal reversible error in the Examiner's determination that the effluent from the reaction zone is cooled without any separation of the alkane. As found by the Examiner, Schulz teaches that the propylene stream contains from 0 to about 50 wt.% propane (col. 10, 11. 4-- 6). Because no separation occurs between alkylation reactor 110 and cooler (heat exchanger) 114 (Schulz Fig. 2), we discern no error in the Examiner's finding that "any amount of propane entering the process with propylene stream 152 (propane is expected to remain unreacted in the first alkylation reactor 110) would go through without separation [to] cooler 114 [and] to the alkylation zone 120" (Ans. 4). 5 Appeal 2014-006478 Application 13/042,004 2. Whether the "first feedstock" recited in claim 1 includes alkylatable compounds that are not limited to benzene, ethylbenzene and cumene The Examiner acknowledges that although the "first feedstock" as recited in step 1 (a) is defined by the open term ""comprises," the claim "further limit[ s] the alkylatable aromatic compounds [of the first feedstock] to benzene, ethylbenzene, and cumene" (Ans., 4). The Examiner finds, however, that Schulz's "polyalkylbenzenes entering the alkylation reaction work as inhibitors[,] not alkylatable aromatic compounds" (id.). Thus, the Examiner concludes that the "Appellants[' claim 1] do[ es] not exclude these polyisopropyl aromatic inhibitors from the first feedstock as recited in 1( c )" (id. at 4--5) (citing Schulz, col. 2, lines 44--50; col. 9, lines 49---60). The Examiner further states that "Schulz discloses transalkylation produces desired monoalkylated aromatic compound[ s ], namely cumene" and that "[ c ]umene as the desired product should be removed from the transalkylation effluent also containing polyisopropylbenzene before the polyisopropylbenzene [is] fed to the alkylation reaction to function as [an] inhibitor since cumene is the final desired product" (id. at 5). The Appellants contend that "while polyalkylaromatics might arguably be recycled elsewhere in the claimed scheme, they cannot be part of the first feedstock, which is claimed such that the 'alkylatable aromatic compound' thereof is limited to ' [consist] of benzene and optionally ethylbenzene and cumene"' (Appeal Br. 12-13) (quoting claim 1 ). According to the Appellants, "the skilled artisan would recognize that a di- alkylated aromatic could be subsequently alkylated to be a tri-alkylated, 6 Appeal 2014-006478 Application 13/042,004 tetra-alkylated or an even higher-alkylated aromatic, despite Schulz et al. 's silence" (id. at 14) (citing Spec. i-f 5; Schulz col. 2, 11. 13-16). We find that the Appellants' arguments reveal a reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion that claim 1 does not exclude Schulz's polyalkylaromatics from the "first feedstock" recited in claim 1. Although the word "comprises" opens the "first feedstock" to include compounds in addition to the specific types of compounds named, the claim is further limited as to the "alkylatable aromatic compound[ s ]" that may be used in the "first feedstock" as a result of the use of the transitional phrase "consists of," which narrows the "alkylatable aromatic compound[ s ]" to benzene and optionally ethylbenzene and cumene. Here, the Examiner failed to direct us to sufficient evidence indicating that Schulz's polyalkylaromatics are not "alkylatable aromatic compound[s]." Indeed, consistent with the Appellants' argued position (Reply Brief filed May 12, 2014, hereinafter "Reply Br.", 3--4), Schulz's disclosure at column 6, lines 62---64, which the Examiner relied on (Ans. 5), indicates that such polyalkylaromatics would be alkylatable ("In the transalkylation reaction zone, diisopropylbenzene and higher polyisopropylbenzenes transalkylate with benzene to produce cumene (isopropylbenzene )."). In the Answer at page 6, the Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments by determining that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the Schulz process as shown in figure 2 by separating the desired isopropyl aromatic product from the unreacted polyisopropyl aromatic compounds since Schulz discloses (1) only polyisopropyl aromatic[ s are] needed as inhibitors for the alkylation reaction and (2) isopropyl aromatics are desired 7 Appeal 2014-006478 Application 13/042,004 products. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the isopropyl aromatic in the transalkylation effluent were fed to the alkylation reaction, it could be further alkylated under alkylation conditions to undesired polyisopropyl aromatics. As a result, the production of desired isopropyl aromatics would be reduced. We agree with the Appellants (Reply Br. 4) that "Schulz is entirely silent regarding separating components of the reactor exit streams between reactors, especially since the polyalkyl aromatics thereof are intended to be introduced into each alkylation reactor/step thereof." Because the Examiner fails to identify sufficient evidence or provide a sufficient rationale to establish that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have dispensed with the introduction of Schulz's polyalkylaromatics into each alkylation reactor, we discern no merit in the Examiner's determination. Accordingly, the Examiner's final decision to reject claim 1 is reversed. Because all claims on appeal depend from claim 1; our decision to reverse as to claim 1 is dispositive for all claims, including separately argued claims 12 and 14--1 7. SUMMARY The Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, and 12-17 is reversed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation