Ex Parte Digne et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 4, 201613060457 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/060,457 10/14/2011 23599 7590 11/08/2016 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. 2200 CLARENDON BL VD. SUITE 1400 ARLINGTON, VA 22201 Romina Digne 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. PET-2684 9427 EXAMINER LOUIE, PHILIP Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1772 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/08/2016 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): docketing@mwzb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROMINA DIONE, OLIVIER CALLEBERT, and ROMAIN ROUX Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, GEORGE C. BEST, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 4, and 8-13 of Application 13/060,457 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious and also rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 4. Final Act. (February 14, 2014). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM. 1 IFP Energies Nouvelles is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 BACKGROUND The '457 Application describes processes for converting heavy hydrocarbons into gasoline and propylene. Spec. 1. In particular, a process for the co-production of propylene and at least a minimum yield of gasoline is described. Id. The fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) process converts heavy hydrocarbon feeds into lighter hydrocarbons, including gasoline and liquefied gas (LPG). Id. Propylene is a component of LPG. Id. The particular blend of lighter hydrocarbons produced by an FCC process depends, inter alia, upon the particular conditions used in the process. Id. By adjusting the conditions, the amount of propylene produced can be increased. Id. In general, increasing the amount of propylene produced in an FCC process reduces the yield of gasoline produced. Id. Claim 1 is representative of the '457 Application's claims and is reproduced below: 1. A process for the co-production of gasoline and propylene from a heavy hydrocarbon feed with an initial boiling point of more than 340°C using a catalytic cracking unit followed by an oligomerization unit which can function in accordance with two regimes termed "maxi propylene" and "maxi gasoline", in which: • for the "maxi propylene" regime, the feed for the oligomerization unit is constituted by the C4 cut or the C4/C5 olefinic cut derived from catalytic cracking and the effluents from the oligomerization unit are separated into a C8+ oligomer cut which is recycled at least in part to the inlet to the catalytic cracking unit, the gasoline cut from the process being constituted by the gasoline cut produced in the catalytic cracking unit and the oligomer cut derived from the oligomerization unit which is not recycled for catalytic cracking; in which in the "maxi propylene" regime, catalytic cracking is carried out in 2 Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 two distinct FCC reactors in dropper mode, the first FCC reactor carrying out cracking of the heavy feed operates at a reactor outlet temperature (ROT 1) in the range 550°C to 700°C, and a C/O ratio in the range 15 to 50, and the second FCC reactor carrying out cracking of C8+ oligomers derived from the oligomerization unit (termed the light feed) operates at a reactor outlet temperature (ROT2) in the range 570°C to 700°C, with a C/O ratio in the range 15 to 50; • for the "maxi gasoline" regime, the feed for the oligomerization unit is constituted by the olefinic C3/C4 cut derived from catalytic cracking, and the effluents from the oligomerization unit are separated into a C6+ oligomer cut which is added to the gasoline cut derived from catalytic cracking to constitute the gasoline produced by the process; in which in the "maxi gasoline" regime, catalytic cracking is carried out in two reactors operating in riser mode, the reactor outlet temperature (ROT) is in the range 500°C to 580°C, and the C/O ratio is in the range 5 to 20; the propylene being obtained in the two regimes from effluents of catalytic cracking after separation in one or more distillation columns. Supp. Br. 1 (filed September 24, 2014) (Corrected Claims App.). 3 Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 REJECTION On appeal, the Examiner maintains2 the following rejection: 1. Claims 1, 4, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Duplan, 3 A vidan, 4 and Gauthier. 5 Final Act. 7. DISCUSSION In arguing for the reversal of the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8-13, Appellants do not specifically cite the limitations of any particular claim. See Br. 2-5. Accordingly, we select claim I-the only independent claim on appeal-as representative of the group of the appealed claims. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Dependent claims 4 and 8-13 will stand or fall with claim 1. We begin-as we must-by considering the language of claim 1. During prosecution, the PTO gives the language of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the vvords in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions or other enlightenment provided by the written description contained in the applicant's specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the § 112, i-f 4 rejection of claim 4. Answer 11. 3 US 2005/0121361 Al, published June 9, 2005. 4 US 4,822,477, issued April 18, 1989. 5 US 6,641,715 Bl, issued November 4, 2003. 4 Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 Claim 1 is a process claim. A process claim consists of a series of steps to be performed. Claim 1, however, is not written in a manner that clearly recites these steps. We, therefore, look to interpret the claim's language in a manner that defines a series of steps comprising the claimed process. The first portion of claim 1 states that the claim is directed to a process for transforming a heavy hydrocarbon feed into propylene and gasoline using an apparatus that can carry out either a "maxi propylene" process or a "maxi gasoline" process. The rest of the claim sets out the steps in these processes. Because the maxi propylene and maxi gasoline processes cannot be performed simultaneously on the same apparatus, the first step in the claimed process is the selection of which process will actually be performed. Our interpretation is consistent with the'457 Application's Specification, which states: The process of the invention means that two types of production corresponding to two distinct regimes can be carried out: • a regime termed "maxi propylene" corresponding to a maximum production of propylene while maintaining a minimum or even slightly increased gasoline yield with respect to the potential yield of the catalytic cracking unit alone; or • a regime termed "maxi gasoline", corresponding to a maximum production of gasoline without the production of propylene. One of the advantages of the invention is to be able to swing over time from one to the other of the two regimes defined above. It is also possible to operate the unit in any intermediate mode between the "maxi propylene" and "maxi gasoline" regimes. 5 Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 Spec. 3. In view of the foregoing, we interpret claim 1 as follows: 1. A process for the co-production of gasoline and propylene from a heavy hydrocarbon feed with an initial boiling point of more than 340°C using a catalytic cracking unit followed by an oligomerization unit which can function in accordance with two regimes termed "maxi propylene" and "maxi gasoline", comprising: selecting either a "maxi propylene" mode or a "maxi gasoline" mode," wherein a. the "maxi propylene" mode comprises 1. supplying the heavy hydrocarbon feed to the catalytic cracking unit; 11. cracking the heavy hydrocarbon feed in a first FCC reactor operated in dropper mode with a reactor outlet temperature (ROT 1) in the range of 550°C to 700°C, and a C/O ratio in the range of 15 to 50; 111. cracking a C8+ cut in a second FCC reactor operated in dropper mode at a reactor outlet temperature (ROT2) in the range 570°C to 700°C, with a C/O ratio in the range 15 to 50; 1v. supplying the effluent of the catalytic cracking unit to a first separation zone comprising one or more distillation columns; v. obtaining propylene from the first separation zone; vi. obtaining a first gasoline cut from the first separation zone; vii. obtaining an oligomerization feed comprising either a C4 cut or a C4/C5 cut from the first separation zone; 6 Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 vni. supplying the oligomerization feed to the oligomerization unit; Ix. supplying the oligomerization unit effluent to a second separation zone; x. obtaining the C8+ oligomer cut from the second separation zone; and xi. supplying at least a portion of the C8+ oligomer cut to the second FCC reactor in the catalytic cracking unit; wherein the total gasoline cut produced by the "maxi propylene" mode is constituted by the first gasoline cut and the portion of the C8 + oligomer cut not supplied to the second FCC reactor in the catalytic cracking unit; and wherein b. the "maxi gasoline" mode comprises 1. supplying the heavy hydrocarbon feed to a catalytic cracking unit comprising a first FCC reactor and a second FCC reactor IL operating the first and second FCC reactors in riser mode at a reactor outlet temperature (ROT) in the range of 500°C to 580°C, and a C/O ratio in the range of 8 to 20; 111. supplying the effluent of the catalytic cracking unit to a first separation zone comprising one or more distillation columns; IV. obtaining a first gasoline cut from the first separation zone obtaining a C3/C4 cut from the first separation zone; v. supplying the C3/C4 cut to an oligomerization unit; vi. supplying the oligomerization unit effluent to a second separation zone comprising one or more distillation columns; 7 Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 vii. obtaining a second gasoline cut comprising a C6 + oligomer cut from the second separation zone; vni. obtaining a C4 cut from the second separation zone; and 1x. obtaining propylene from the second separation zone; wherein the total gasoline cut produced by the "maxi gasoline" mode is constituted by the first gasoline cut and the second gasoline cut. First, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Duplan, A vidan, and Gauthier describes or suggests the step of selecting either a "maxi propylene" mode or a "maxi gasoline" mode. Br. 5. This argument is not persuasive. As the Examiner explained: Du plan teaches that the co-production of propylene and gasoline can be altered depending on the particular economic situation in which either maximum production of propylene is sought or high gasoline yield is sought ([0133]-[0134]). It would therefore be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust which olefinic fraction is provided to the oligomerization unit in order to obtain either additional propylene or gasoline depending on if a maximum production of propylene is sought or if a high gasoline yield is sought. Therefore, Duplan is considered to teach operating the oligomerization unit in a "maxi propylene" regime while A vidan teaches operating the oligomerization unit in a "maxi gasoline" regime. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the combination of prior art elements would produce a method in which an oligomerization unit could be operated either in a "maxi propylene" or "maxi gasoline" regime during the co-production of both propylene and gasoline. 8 Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 Final Act. 9. See also Answer 15 ("Although Duplan teaches producing more propylene than gasoline, Duplan also teaches that the co-production of proplyene and gasoline can be altered depending on the particular economic situation . . . . Therefore, Duplan recognizes that the co-production process can be altered/modified based on the desired product."). We do not discern error in the Examiner's findings and reasoning in this regard. Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Duplan describes or suggests the steps of the maxi propylene process: [Duplan's] disclosure is respectfully submitted not to suggest to one person of ordinary skill in the art a process wherein a heavy feed is subjected to cracking, and the effluent separated into gasoline, and C3--4 hydrocarbons, with C3 hydrocarbons recovered and C4 olefins then oligomerized, separated to recover Cs-oligomers which can then be used as gasoline or recycled to cracking. See present Figure 1 and claim 1. Br. 3. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. As the Examiner found, Final Act. 8, Duplan supplies a heavy hydrocarbon feedstock to an FCC reactor. See Duplan Fig. 1; i-f 151 (nature of feedstock for FCC reactor R3); i-f 28 (properties of vacuum distillate in feedstock). The effluent from FCC reactor R3 is introduced into separation zone S3. Id. i-f 153. The propylene produced by the FCC process is recovered from separation zone S3 via line 12. Id. i-f 158. Separation zone S3 also isolates a C4/C5 cut that can be introduced into oligomerization reactor R2 via line 10. Id. i-fi-1149, 153-155. The effluent from oligomerization reactor R2 is introduced into separation zone S2. Id. i-f 149. Separation zone S2 isolates, inter alia, C8+ oligomers. Id. At least a portion of these oligomers are fed back into reactor R3. Id. The Examiner further found that Gauthier describes operating a dropper 9 Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 reactor at temperatures between 500°C and 700°C with a C/O ratio of 5-20. Final Act. 11. Because these ranges overlap the claimed ranges, the Examiner correctly concluded that the claimed operating temperatures and catalyst ratios were prima facie obvious. We, therefore, conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding the steps of the maxi propylene process obvious. Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner's conclusion is erroneous because the embodiment which introduces the C4/C5 cut into the oligomerization unit via line 10 is not the preferred embodiment. Br. 3--4. This argument is not persuasive. In an obviousness inquiry, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)); see also In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 200 l) (explaining that a preferred embodiment does not necessarily teach away from a non-preferred embodiment); In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCP A 1966) (all of the disclosures in a reference, including non-preferred embodiments, "must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art"). Fourth, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the Duplan, A vidan, and Gauthier to arrive at the "maxi gasoline" process. Br. 5. In particular, Appellants argue that such a combination would "vitiate the entire advantage of Duplan." Id. As discussed above, the Examiner correctly determined that Duplan discusses varying the relative amounts of propylene and gasoline produced in a catalytic cracking process according to the relative value of 10 Appeal2015-004740 Application 13/060,457 propylene versus gasoline at the time the process is carried out. See Final Act. 9. Appellants' argument, therefore, is not persuasive. Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8-13. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8-13 of the '457 Application. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation