Ex Parte Dierickx

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2014

12761252 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/761,252 04/15/2010 Jan Lodewijk Maria DIERICKX TS1591 02 (US) 1756
23632 7590 09/04/2014
SHELL OIL COMPANY
P O BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, RENEE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1774
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2014 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
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JAN LODEWIJK MARIA DIERICKX 1
________________

Appeal 2013-000769
Application 12/761,252
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Jan Lodewijk Maria Dierickx (“Dierickx”) timely appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1-11, which
are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm-in-part.

1 The real party in interest is listed as Shell Oil Company. (Appeal Brief,
filed 25 April 2012 (“Br.”), 2 [un-numbered].)
2 Office action mailed 28 October 2011 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
Appeal 2013-000769
Application 12/761,252

2
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to processes of preparing gasoline
mixtures from Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products. The Fischer Tropsch
process refers to the conversion of “synthesis gas,” a mixture of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen, into liquid hydrocarbons. According to
the ʼ252 Specification, preparing gasoline having an acceptable octane
number from Fischer-Tropsch products is not straightforward due to the low
octane value of many of the products. (Spec. 1, ll. 11-20.) The claimed
invention is directed to the production of a gasoline component comprising a
high (more than 90 wt%) amount of a mixture of trimethyl- and
monomethyl-substituted paraffins and olefins. (Id. at 2, ll. 28-35.)
Claim 1 is representative of the substantive issues on appeal and
reads:
A process to prepare an aliphatic gasoline component
comprising
(a) contacting a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis product with a
catalyst system comprising
a catalyst, which catalyst comprises an acidic matrix
and a large pore molecular sieve
in a riser reactor
at a temperature of between 450 and 650°C

3 Application 12/761,252, Aliphatic gasoline component and process to
prepare said gasoline component, filed 15 April 2010, and claiming, through
a divisional application, the national stage of PCT/EP2005/052392,
filed 25 May 2005, as well as the benefit of applications filed in the EPO on
26 May 2004 and 30 November 2004. We refer to the “ʼ252 Specification,”
and cite it as “Spec.”
Appeal 2013-000769
Application 12/761,252

3
at a contact time of between 1 and 10 seconds and
at a catalyst to oil ratio of between 2 and 20 kg/kg;
(b) isolating from the product of step (a)
a gasoline fraction and
a fraction comprising iso-butane and iso-butylene
wherein
the amount of iso-butylene is greater than or
about equal to the amount of iso-butane;
(c) subjecting the iso-butane and the iso-butylene obtained
in step (b) to an alkylation step to prepare a trimethyl
substituted pentane; and
(d) combining the gasoline fraction obtained in step (b)
with the trimethyl substituted pentane as obtained
in step (c).
(Claims App., Br. 7 [un-numbered]; some paragraphing, indentation, and
emphasis added.)
Relative to the Final Rejection, the Examiner maintains only the
following grounds of rejection:4
A. Claims 1 and 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Trin Dinh5 and Bell.6
A1. Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
of the combined teachings of Trin Dinh, Bell, and Derr.7

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed 11 July 2012 (“Ans.”).
5 Chan Trin Dinh et al., Process for upgrading effluents from syntheses of
the Fischer-Tropsch type, U.S. Patent No. 4,125,566 (1978). Although the
surname of the first inventor is “Dinh,” we follow the record and refer to
“Trin Dinh.”
6 Weldon K. Bell et al., Alkylation with activated equilibrium FCC catalyst,
U.S. Patent No. 5,481,057 (1996).
7 W. Rodman Derr, Jr., et al., Process for upgrading wax from Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis, U.S. Patent No. 4,864,756 (1987).
Appeal 2013-000769
Application 12/761,252

4
A2. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Trin Dinh, Bell,
and Geerlings.8-
B. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Derr, Bell, and Trin Dinh.
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Claims 1-10
Dierickx does not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 2-10, which depend from claim 1. Accordingly, claims 2-10 stand or
fall with claim 1.
Dierickx argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Trin Dinh
teaches a process in which a fraction comprising isobutene and isobutylene,
in which the amount of isobutylene is greater than or about equal to the
amount of iso-butane, is subjected to an alkylation step. (Br. 4, 2d full para.)
Rather, Dierickx urges, Dinh teaches that the fraction the Examiner refers to
comprises 18.2 w% olefin, and 53.2 w% isobutene. (Id., citing Dinh, col. 8,
ll. 64-66.)
The weight of the evidence supports Dierickx.
An annotated version of the Figure in Trin Dinh, which describes the
up-grading process taught by Trin Dinh, is reproduced on the following
page. Light, medium, and heavy fractions from a Fischer-Tropsch process

8 Jacobus Geerlings et al., Cobalt based Fisher-Tropsch catalyst, WO
99/34917 (1999).
App
App

are p
sepa
as st
fluid
zone
unit
desc
{T
Strea
fract
isobu
(id. a
eal 2013-0
lication 12
rovided in
rated from
ream 6. C
catalytic c
10 as stre
17, and the
ribed as C
{T
he Figure
treatin
m 30 is th
ionated in
tene comp
t ll. 62-66
00769
/761,252
input stre
the light f
3 and C4 o
racking (“
am 12. C3
output st
3 and C4 hy
he Trin D
shows a fl
g Fischer
en alkylat
fractionato
onent tha
); alkylate
ams 1, 2, a
raction 1 i
lefins also
FCC”) un
and C4 ol
ream 18 is
drocarbon
inh Figure
ow diagra
-Tropsch p
ed in unit 3
r 35 into:
t may be r
stream 38
5
nd 3, resp
n fractiona
are produc
it 8, and se
efin stream
fractionat
s (Trin Di
, annotate
m (annota
roducts de
3, produc
(a) stream
ecycled to
, which is
ectively.
ting zone
ed by cata
parated in
s 6 and 1
ed into str
nh, col. 4,
d, is shown
tions adde
scribed by
ing a strea
36 that co
the alkyla
described
C3 and C4
4, and are
lytic crac
fractiona
2 are polym
eam 30, w
ll. 21-24.)
below}
d) of the p
Trin Din
m 34 that
mprises a
tion unit 3
as a gasol
olefins are
provided
king in
ting
erized in
hich is

rocess of
h}
is
high
3
ine (id. at

Appeal 2013-000769
Application 12/761,252

6
col. 4, l. 67 to col. 5, l. 2); and a “minor residue,” which is discharged
through pipe 39 (id. at col. 5, l. 3).
The only specific description of the composition of stream 30 is
found, as Dierickx points out (Br. 4, 2d full para., last two lines), at Trin
Dinh column 8, lines 64-66, which reads, “[i]n the present example the
fraction of duct 30 contains 18.2 % b.w. of olefins; it also contains a
substantial isobutane amount: 53.2% b.w. in the present case.” Even if all
the olefins were isobutylene, there would be significantly less isobutylene
than isobutene. The Examiner does not direct our attention to credible
evidence in Trin Dinh that the fraction containing isobutene and isobutylene
that is to be alkylated contains an amount of isobutylene greater than or
about equal to the amount of isobutene, as required by claim 1.
None of the Examiner’s other findings regarding claim 1 or claims
dependent from claim 1 cure this defect.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 1-10.
Claim 11
Claim 11 stands rejected in view of Derr, Bell, and Trin Dinh.
(FR 9-12.) As the Examiner points out (Ans. 4, 1st full para.), the only
arguments advanced by Dierickx are directed to a rejection in view of Derr
and Chen, even though that argument is headed by reference to a rejection in
view of Derr, Bell, and Trin Dinh. (Br. 5-6.) Dierickx did not file a Reply.
In the absence of a substantive rebuttal, we affirm the rejection of
claim 11.
Appeal 2013-000769
Application 12/761,252

7
C. Order
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-10.
We affirm the rejection of claim 11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cam