Ex Parte Groten

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 11, 2005

09877277 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 11, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte WILLIBRORD A. GROTEN
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, TIMM, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal which involves claims 1 and
5-7. According to the appellant and the examiner, claims 2-4 and
8-12 are either allowable or allowed.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a process for the
desulfurization of a full boiling range naphtha which contains
thiophenes, diolefins, and mercaptans comprising feeding the
naphtha and hydrogen to a first distillation column reactor and,
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
2
concurrently in this reactor, contacting the thiophene in the
presence of a hydrogenation catalyst in the lower section of the
reactor to convert a portion of the thiophene to n-butyl
mercaptan and contacting the diolefins and mercaptans in the
presence of a Group VIII metal catalyst in the upper section of
the reactor thereby reacting a portion of the mercaptans with a
portion of the diolefins to form sulfide products and a
distillate product. Further details of this appealed subject
matter are set forth in representative independent claim 1 which
reads as follows:
1. A process for the desulfurization of a full
boiling range naphtha comprising the steps of:
(a) feeding (1) a full boiling range naphtha
containing olefins, diolefins, organic sulfur compounds
comprising mercaptans and thiophene and (2) hydrogen to a
first distillation column reactor;
(b) concurrently in said first distillation column
reactor:
(i) contacting the thiophene contained within said
full boiling range naphtha in the presence of a
hydrogenation catalyst in a first distillation reaction zone
in the lower section of said first distillation column
reactor to convert a portion of the thiophene to n-butyl
mercaptan,
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
1On page 4 of the brief, the appellant indicates that the
appealed claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, in
assessing the merits of the above noted rejections, we will focus
on claim 1, which is the sole independent claim before us.
3
(ii) contacting the diolefins and mercaptans in the
presence of a Group VIII metal catalyst in a second
distillation reaction zone in the upper section of said
distillation column reactor thereby reacting a portion of
said mercaptans with a portion of the diolefins to form
sulfide products and a distillate product and
(iii) fractionating said full boiling range naphtha
into a light naphtha and a heavier naphtha, said heavier
naphtha containing said organic sulfur compounds and said
sulfide products;
(c) removing said distillate product as a first
overheads from said first distillation column reactor; and
(d) removing said heavier naphtha from said first
distillation column reactor as bottoms.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner in the Section 102 rejections before us:
Gildert et al. (Gildert) 6,083,378 Jul. 4, 2000
Podrebarac et al. (Podrebarac) 6,303,020 Oct. 16, 2001
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by either Podrebarac or Gildert.1
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a thorough
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellant
and by the examiner concerning these rejections.
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
4
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain each of the rejections advanced on this appeal.
With respect to each of the Section 102 rejections, it is
the examiner’s position that both Podrebarac and Gildert
expressly teach all aspects of the here claimed process except
for the specific reactions recited in appealed claim 1(b)(i) and
(ii) wherein respectively thiophene is converted to n-butyl
mercaptan and mercaptans are reacted with diolefins to form
sulfide products. According to the examiner, these reactions
would inherently occur in the processes of the applied references
because the feed stock, catalyst and reaction conditions of these
processes correspond to those of the appellant’s claimed process.
The appellant contends that the examiner’s above noted
inherency position is not proper. In support of this view, the
appellant presents the following argument on pages 9 and 10 of
the brief:
[N]either of the reactions which are recited in present
claim 1 are disclosed or suggested by either reference.
There is a reason they do not occur. Why? The conditions
used in the reaction to hydrodesulfurize, particularly the
temperatures, are too harsh. In the present process the
lower zone is between 270 and 450oF and the upper
distillation zone between 130 to 270oF, whereas in ‘020
[i.e., Podrebarac] “The distillation column reactor is
advantageously used to react the heavier or higher boiling
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
5
sulfur compounds. The overhead pressure is maintained at
about 0 to 250 psig with the corresponding temperature in
the distillation reaction zone of between 400 to 700oF.”
col. 5, lines 23-27. In the figure relied on by the
examiner, the temperature is 550-600oF” (col. 6, 44); and in
‘378 [i.e., Gildert] “Typical conditions in a reaction
distillation zone of a naphtha hydrodesulfurization
distillation column reactor are: Temperature 450-700
oF . . .” col. 5, lines 59-65.
Therefore, neither of these references disclose
conditions, and particularly use conditions which would
result in the process claimed in claim 1 and inherency is
not truly, even a remote possibility.
This argument is unpersuasive for a number of reasons.
Initially, it is important to stress that the processes claimed
by the appellant and disclosed by the applied references possess
many commonalities. Not only do these processes exhibit common
feedstocks (i.e., full boiling range naphtha and hydrogen),
catalysts and reaction conditions as noted by the examiner, they
also are disclosed as possessing common advantages (e.g.,
desulfurization without substantial loss of olefins) and as
achieving common goals (e.g., yielding a light naphtha product in
the first distillation column reactor). See, for example: the
“SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” (as well as the paragraph thereabove)
in the respective specifications of the appellant, Podrebarac and
Gildert; as well as the appellant’s specification disclosure at
line 2 on page 12 through line 5 on page 13 in comparison with
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
6
Gildert’s disclosure in lines 13-57 of column 6 and with
Podrebarac’s disclosure in lines 1-34 in column 6.
These many commonalities support the examiner’s inherency
position. This position is particularly supported by the fact
that the feed and products, especially the light naphtha overhead
product, of the first distillation column reactor in the here
claimed and prior art processes are all the same. This is
because the appellant does not explain and we do not
independently perceive how the prior art processes can react the
same feedstocks to yield the same products without involving the
same reactions as the appellant’s claimed process.
In this last mentioned regard, the appellant contends that
the conditions of the Podrebarac and Gildert processes are too
harsh to permit the reactions recited in appealed claim 1(b)(i)
and (ii). In support of this argument, the appellant refers to
the temperature ranges disclosed in his specification for the
upper and lower distillation zones of the here claimed first
distillation column reactor. However, this specification
disclosure (i.e., see lines 6-11 on page 11) does not teach or
even suggest that temperatures outside these ranges would prevent
the reactions under consideration from ocurring. Further, it is
significant that the lower zone temperature range overlaps the
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
7
prior art temperature ranges as revealed by comparing the
temperature ranges cited by the appellant in his aforequoted
argument in the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the brief.
As for the upper zone temperature range, we point out that both
Podrebarac (see lines 12-26 in column 6) and Gildert (see lines
24-39 in column 6), like the appellant (see lines 11-22 on
specification page 12), teach that the upper zone of their
distillation column reactors contain a lower boiling fraction
which is subjected to lower temperatures in order to provide for
greater selectivity. In the processes of the applied references,
the lower boiling point fraction treated in the upper zone of the
first distillation column reactor results in a light naphtha
overhead product just as in the appellant’s claimed and disclosed
process. See lines 9-35 in column 7 of Podrebarac and the
paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7 of Gildert in comparison with
the paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14 of the subject
specification.
The above discussed circumstances reflect that the upper
zones in the first distillation column reactors of Podrebarac and
Gildert involve temperature ranges which overlap the disclosed
temperature range for the upper zone of the appellant’s claimed
first distillation column reactor. This supports the examiner’s
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
8
position that the here claimed reactions under consideration
would inherently occur in the processes of the applied
references. Even disregarding this temperature issue, the
examiner’s inherency position still would be well taken. This is
because the light naphtha produced in this upper zone is the same
in the prior art processes as in the here claimed process. In
this regard, it is appropriate to reiterate that we can think of
no mechanism and the appellant suggests none in which the same
feedstock ingredients in this upper zone would yield the same
light naphtha product without involving the same reactions in the
processes of the appellant and the applied references.
For the reasons set forth above and in the answer, the
examiner’s inherency position is reasonably supported by facts
and technical rationale. See Ex Parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461,
1463-64 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990). It is our determination,
therefore, that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of anticipation which the appellant has failed to successfully
rebut with argument or evidence to the contrary. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). It follows that we hereby sustain the examiner’s Section
102 rejections of claims 1 and 5-7 as being anticipated by either
Podrebarac or Gildert.
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
9
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CATHERINE TIMM ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:hh
Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
10
KENNETH H. JOHNSON
P.O. BOX 630708
HOUSTON, TX 77263