Ex Parte Grootveld et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2015

11428478 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/428,478 07/03/2006 Gerard Grootveld TS1675 (US) 4087
23632 7590 04/14/2015
SHELL OIL COMPANY
P O BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
EXAMINER
AKRAM, IMRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2015 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 GERARD GROOTVELD and
PIETER LAMMERT ZUIDEVELD
____________

Appeal 2013-004984
Application 11/428,478
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Wing-Chiu (US 6,448,441 B1, issued Sept. 10, 2002 ); and
claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wing-Chiu.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2013-004984
Application 11/428,478

2
We AFFIRM.
The sole independent claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added):
1. A system for producing synthesis gas comprising CO
and H2, the system comprising:
a first gasification reactor comprising a first-reactor
oxygen inlet for a first oxygen containing stream, a first-reactor
fuel inlet for a first carbonaceous stream which is selected from
the group consisting of a particulate and a liquid stream, and a
first-reactor outlet for raw synthesis gas produced in the first
gasification reactor;
a second gasification reactor comprising a second-reactor
oxygen inlet for a second oxygen containing stream, a second-
reactor fuel inlet for a second carbonaceous stream which is
selected from the group consisting of a gaseous and a liquid
stream and a mixture thereof, and a second reactor outlet for
raw synthesis gas produced in the second gasification reactor;
an oxygen source of an oxygen containing stream
wherein the source of an oxygen containing stream is an air
separation unit having a maximum oxygen capacity of less than
80% of the sum of the oxygen requirements for the first and
second gasification reactors; and
a distributor for fluidly connecting the oxygen source to
the first-reactor oxygen inlet and to the second-reactor oxygen
inlet, the distributor being arranged to selectively connect the
oxygen source to the first or second gasification reactor.
Appellants only present arguments directed to independent claim 1
(App. Br. 3–5). Accordingly, all of the claims stand or fall together.
ANALYSIS
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that the claimed subject matter of
Appeal 2013-004984
Application 11/428,478

3
representative claim 1 is anticipated within the meaning of § 102 in view of
the applied prior art of Wing-Chiu. Accordingly, we will sustain all of the
Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer,
including the Examiner’s Response to Argument section, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
Appellants’ main argument is that Wing-Chiu does not describe any
“selective connection” for its oxygen distribution (App. Br. 4; emphasis in
original) and does not “unambiguously” describe that the oxygen feed rate is
adjusted (Reply Br. 2, 3). Thus, Appellants contend that Wing-Chiu does
not describe the claimed “distributor being arranged to selectively connect
the oxygen source to the first or second gasification reactor.” These
arguments are unpersuasive. A preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s reasonable finding that, contrary to Appellants’ position, Wing-
Chiu does indeed disclose with sufficient specificity that one may adjust the
oxygen feed rate to each reactor (for example only, turn it on and off). The
oxygen distributor 25 as exemplified by Appellants is merely two branched
lines off a main supply line, which is also what is shown in Wing-Chiu
(Compare Appellants’ Spec. Fig 1, oxygen feed lines 60 and 70 to Wing-
Chiu’s Fig. 1, oxygen feed lines 18 and 20). One of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2013-004984
Application 11/428,478

4
would have immediately understood that the system would have included a
mechanism at the branch point/distributor to adjust the material flow therein
so as to turn the flow to each reactor on or off.1
Furthermore, as pointed out by the Examiner, Wing-Chiu explicitly
states “[t]he feedrates to each gasification reactor are independently
adjusted” (col. 6, ll. 8–10; Ans. 6). Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted this to include all feed
lines, including the oxygen feed lines 18, 20, natural gas feed line 8, and
liquid hydrocarbonaceous feed line 2. (See also Win-Chiu col. 8, ll. 19–29
(one of ordinary skill in the art, e.g., a chemical engineer, will appreciate and
understand the simplified schematic diagrams to include all potential
embodiments of the invention described therein)). In re Preda, 401 F. 2d
825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (In determining whether a reference anticipates the
subject matter recited in a claim, “it is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” (emphasis
added)); see also Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927
F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (To be an anticipatory reference, “[t]here
must be no difference between the claimed invention and the reference

1 Cf. In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978) (In order to
anticipate, a reference must identify something falling within the claimed
subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a description thereof
within the purview of § 102.). It is well established that specific examples
of the claimed subject matter are not necessary to establish anticipation.
Rather, to anticipate, one skilled in the art must be able to “at once envisage”
the claimed subject matter in the prior art disclosure. In re Petering, 301
F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962).

Appeal 2013-004984
Application 11/428,478

5
disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
invention.” (emphasis added)).
On this record, Appellants have not directed our attention to any
persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claimed distributor is unreasonable, nor to any portion
of the Specification that limits the definition of a distributor to exclude the
adjustment of oxygen feed rates to each reactor found in Wing-Chiu as
pointed out by the Examiner.
Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s § 102 and §103 rejections, and we sustain all of the rejections on
appeal.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

ORDER
AFFIRMED

lp