Ex Parte GEEL et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 201311627248 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/627,248 01/25/2007 Cees Van GEEL TS1635 (US) 1578 23632 7590 09/17/2013 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER BAUER, CASSEY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2013 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 CEES VAN GEEL, ELIN MARGIT KRISTINA JOSEFSSON, GERRIT KONIJN, HUGO GERARDUS POLDERMAN, ARTHUR WILLISBRORDUS TITUS ROTS, and ANTON PIETER WESTERINK ____________________ Appeal 2011-008831 Application 11/627,248 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008831 Application 11/627,248 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawabe (US 6,080,897, iss. Jun. 27, 2000) and Pano (US 4,143,521, iss. Mar. 13, 1979) (Ans. 3-16). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and is reproduced below: 1. A heat integration system for removing heat of reaction from an EC-l Reactor in which ethylene carbonate (EC) is produced from ethylene oxide (EO) for conversion into monoethylene glycol (MEG) and generating Chilled liquid for use by one or more Consumer Units, wherein the system comprises an EC-l Reactor Cooler suitable for removing heat from an EC-l Reactor, wherein the EC-l Reactor Cooler is located in an EC-l Reactor Liquid Recycle which comprises a side draw and liquid recycle, said liquid recycle comprised of reaction liquid, from the EC-l Reactor, an Intermediate Loop which is in communication with the Reactor Cooler and with an absorption Refrigeration Unit, and which is suitable for conducting Intermediate liquid therebetween to transfer said heat from the EC-l Reactor to the absorption Refrigeration Unit to drive the absorption Refrigeration Unit, the absorption Refrigeration Unit being suitable for generating Chilled liquid, and a Chilled liquid loop suitable for conducting Chilled liquid generated in the absorption Refrigeration Unit for use by one or more Consumer Units, the system being such that the absorption Refrigeration Unit uses heat generated in the EC-l Reactor to generate Chilled liquid for the Chilled liquid loop and Consumer Unit(s), 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Shell Oil Company. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-008831 Application 11/627,248 3 wherein the system additionally comprises a Shutdown Cooler having an independent cooling source which is suitable, alternatively or in addition to the absorption Refrigeration Unit, for removing heat from the EC-l Reactor, and wherein the system additionally comprises an independent stand-by source of Chilled liquid which is suitable, alternatively or in addition to the absorption Refrigeration Unit, for generating chilled liquid, to serve the one or more Consumer Units. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 The Examiner found that Kawabe fails to teach, inter alia, “the system additionally compris[ing] an independent stand-by source of Chilled liquid which is suitable, alternatively or in addition to the absorption Refrigeration Unit, for generating chilled liquid, to serve the one or more Consumer Units.” Ans. 4. The Examiner, however, found that Pano teaches “an independent stand-by source of Chilled liquid (cooled water with condenser 130).” Id. at 5. More particularly, the Examiner found that the cooling water in heat exchange with condenser 130 “is independent of both the absorption refrigeration unit and the ethylene production process[,] and . . . is therefore an independent stand-by source of chilled liquid.” Id. at 18. Moreover, the Examiner found that the cooling water in heat exchange with condenser 130 “meets the claimed limitations” because without the cooling water in heat exchange with condenser 130, “the chilled ammonia liquid exiting the pressure reducing means (142) [which serves the consumer units, such as heat exchangers 56, 84, for example] would not be generated.” Id. at 18-19. In other words, the Examiner found that Pano’s “cooled water within condenser (130) works with the refrigeration unit (12) to produce chilled Appeal 2011-008831 Application 11/627,248 4 refrigerant to serve the consumer unit (other system processes).” Id. at 5-6 (citing Pano, col. 10, ll. 13-27). The Examiner concluded that: it would be well within the capabilities of one skilled in the art to modify they [sic] system of Kawabe to utilize the adsorption system driven by the waste heat of reaction, and one could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of utilizing waste heat generated in the Reactor of Kawabe to drive an adsorption refrigeration unit to cool other system processes, [and] it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art . . . to modify the system of Kawabe to include the elements of Pano, mutatis mutandis, and arrive at the claimed invention in order to produce a system in which low-level waste heat is efficiently utilized to generate ammonia refrigerant which is advantageously employed to cool various process streams and equipment. Id. at 6-7. Appellants contend that “[c]laim 1 . . . requires an ‘independent stand- by source of Chilled liquid,’” whereas “[t]here is no suggestion in Pano that these units [that use chilled liquid] could or should be chilled by anything other than the refrigerant from the ammonia absorption refrigeration system (12).” Br. 4. Appellants argue that there is no “alternative means of heat removal by the provision of an independent stand-by source of chilled liquid.” Id. The Specification states that “[r]eference herein to a stand-by source of Chilled liquid . . . is to an additional, independent source . . . that is available as a stand-by for operation when the absorption Refrigeration Unit is not (fully) in operation and that may be in permanent use or operation if desired.” Spec. 3, l. 29 – 4, l. 2. Thus, according to the meaning of an “independent stand-by source of Chilled liquid” set forth in the Appeal 2011-008831 Application 11/627,248 5 Specification, claim 1 calls for the independent stand-by source of chilled liquid to be available to generate chilled liquid to serve the consumer units even when the absorption refrigeration unit is not fully in operation—i.e., alternatively to the absorption refrigeration unit as recited in the claim. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Pano does not disclose an independent stand-by source of chilled liquid that is suitable to generate chilled liquid alternatively to the absorption refrigeration unit. The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Pano discloses an independent stand-by source of chilled liquid as called for by the claims merely because “the cooling water in heat exchanger (130) along with other components of the absorption refrigeration system generates the chilled liquid ammonia which serves the consumer units.” Ans. 18-19 (emphasis added). In particular, the Examiner’s findings do not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that is it more likely than not that Pano discloses a source of chilled liquid that is available to generate chilled liquid to serve the consumer units even when the absorption refrigeration unit is not fully in operation—i.e., alternatively to the absorption refrigeration unit. The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is thus based on an erroneous finding as to the scope and content of Pano. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of independent claim 1 would have been obvious from the combination of Kawabe and Pano, and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2 and 4-9 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawabe and Pano. Appeal 2011-008831 Application 11/627,248 6 Claim 11 Independent claim 11 recites: A control system for controlling a heat integration system as hereinbefore defined in Claim 1, comprising a plurality of controllers, Control Units and/or control valves wherein the controllers provide signals relating to the EC-l Reactor loading and the Consumer Unit(s) demand, to the controllers or Control Units or a combination thereof, and to control valves regulating operation of the Shutdown Cooler and the absorption Refrigeration Unit. Br., Claims App’x. Independent claim 11 merely refers to claim 1 as shorthand for a structure (i.e., heat integration system) that is intended to be controlled by the claimed control system, and does not include all of the structure of the heat integration system recited in claim 1. Accordingly, to the extent that Appellants may be relying on arguments relating to the failure of Pano to disclose a heat integration system in which heat is taken from a reaction liquid (Br. 3, 5) or to disclose a heat integration system including an independent stand-by source of chilled liquid (Br. 4), these arguments are not persuasive with respect to claim 11 since these arguments are not based on limitations that appear in the control system claim. See Br., Claims App’x. Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). We have also considered Appellants’ arguments that “[t]here simply is no motivation for such a combination [of Kawabe and Pano]” (Br. 5) and that “the skilled person, seeking to integrate heat between units and achieve temperature control of an exothermic chemical reaction, would [not] consult Pano” (Id. at 4). Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive in that the Court rejects the rigid requirement of demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or Appeal 2011-008831 Application 11/627,248 7 motivation to combine references in order to show obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Rather, rejections based on obviousness must be supported by “ . . . some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appellants do not persuasively explain why the Examiner’s articulated reasoning of combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results lacks rational underpinnings. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of independent claim 11 would have been obvious from the combination of Kawabe and Pano, and we sustain the rejection of independent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawabe and Pano. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation