Ex Parte Haney et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2019

14747727 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/747,727 06/23/2015
136940 7590
Fluor Coporation
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
05/23/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fred Haney
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.
1011US3_ 4570-12817 6202
EXAMINER
KENNY, DANIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2019 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):
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
intellectual.property.communications@fluor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRED HANEY, GARY DONOVAN, TODD ROTH,
ALAN LOWRIE, GEORGE MORLIDGE, SIMON LUCCHINI, and
SEAN HALVORSEN
Appeal2018-004294
Application 14/747,727 1
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE-
Fred Haney et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated Apr. 18, 2017, hereinafter
"Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-5, 9-18, and 20-24. 2 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Fluor Technology Corporation is the applicant and is identified as the real party
in interest in Appellants' Appeal Brief ( filed Oct. 11, 201 7, hereinafter "Appeal
Br."). Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 6-8 and 19 are canceled. Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.).
Appeal2018-004294
Application 14/747,727
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to "modular construction of process facilities."
Spec. para. 2.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A processing facility comprising:
a first process block configured to carry out a first
process;
a second process block configured to carry out a
second process;
wherein the first process block comprises a first
module fluidly coupled to a second module, the first
module being abutted against the second module at a
side-to-side edge interface;
wherein the second process block comprises a
third module fluidly coupled to a fourth module, the third
module being abutted against the second module at an
end-to-end edge interface; and
wherein the second module is fluidly coupled to
the third module via a first fluid line disposed entirely
within an envelope of the second module and the third
module and that is not run through an interconnecting
piperack.
2
Appeal2018-004294
Application 14/747,727
REJECTI0N3
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 9-18, and 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Shumway et al. (WO 03/031012 Al, publ. Apr. 17,
2003, hereinafter "Shumway") and Roblin4 (US 4,452,312, iss. June 5, 1984,
hereinafter "Roblin").
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 1 and 10 requires, inter alia, fluid coupling
between modules of first and second process blocks, respectively, using a "fluid
line disposed entirely within an envelope of the" modules of first and second
process blocks and "that is not run through an interconnecting piperack." Appeal
Br. 33, 35 (Claims App.) ( emphasis added). Similarly, independent claim 18
requires, inter alia, fluid coupling between modules of first and second process
blocks using "a first fluid line that is disposed entirely within an envelope of the
first and second process blocks." Id. at 3 7 ( emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Shumway discloses, inter alia, a first process block
300a-300e including first and second modules 300b, 300a and a second process
block 400 including third and fourth modules 402, 406. Final Act. 4 ( citing
Shumway, para. 28, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner further finds that Shumway does not
disclose fluid coupling between second and third modules 300a, 402 using a fluid
line "that is not running through an interconnecting pipe rack because Shumway
3 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. See Advisory Action (dated July 3, 2017,
hereinafter "Adv. Act.") 2.
4 We view the Examiner's reference to US 4,452,312 as "Robin" as a mere
typographical error. See Final Act. 3-9. Like Appellants, we refer to this
reference as "Roblin," which is the correct spelling of the surname of the named
first inventor. See Appeal Br. 13-20; first page of US 4,452,312.
3
Appeal2018-004294
Application 14/747,727
discloses a pipe rack." Id. at 4; see also Shumway, Figs. 3 (pipe rack 354), 4 (pipe
rack 436). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Roblin discloses fluid coupling
first and second modules 1, 3 using fluid line 21 that "is disposed entirely within
an envelope of the first module and the second module and that is not running
through an interconnecting pipe rack." Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner
concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ...
to so couple the Shumway modules as taught by Rob[l]in for simplicity ... as
compared to pipe racks." Id. (citing Roblin, col. 1, 11. 17-24) (emphasis added).
In response, Appellants argue that Roblin fails to disclose a "direct
connection without external piping between process blocks." Appeal Br. 13
(bolding omitted). According to Appellants, as Roblin's wellhead 1 and auxiliary
module 3 "form[] a single functional piece of valve equipment," neither Roblin's
wellhead 1 nor auxiliary module 3 constitutes a "process block," as called for by
each of independent claims 1, 10, and 18. Id. at 13-14. Hence, Appellants
contend that Roblin' s fluid line 21 "function[ s] as a fluid line between two
modules [1, 3] of the same process block," whereas independent claims 1, 10, and
18 require "modules of different process blocks be fluidly coupled with a first
fluid line disposed entirely within an envelope of the modules of the different
process blocks." Reply Brief (filed Mar. 16, 2018, hereinafter "Reply Br.") 2.
It is undisputed that Shumway fails to disclose modules of different process
blocks fluidly coupled with a fluid line disposed entirely within an envelope of the
modules of the different process blocks. See Final Act. 4. As the Examiner states
that "[ n Jo statement is made that Roblin teaches direct connection without
external piping between process blocks," but rather "that Roblin teaches direct
connection without external piping between modules," Roblin also fails to teach
such a feature. Examiner Answer (dated Jan. 17, 2018, hereinafter "Ans.") 3.
Hence, as neither Shumway nor Roblin discloses modules of different process
4
Appeal2018-004294
Application 14/747,727
blocks fluidly coupled with a fluid line disposed entirely within an envelope of the
modules of the different process blocks, we find that the Examiner's legal
conclusion of obviousness is not supported by sufficient factual evidence, and
thus, cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding
that "[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the
legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand.").
We appreciate the Examiner's position that the "Roblin reference is simply
used to show that it is old in the modular petroleum processing facility to make
connections directly." Final Act. 9; Ans. 4 ("Roblin-taught direct connecting of
modules in an oil processing facility without external piping between modules.").
However, the Examiner has not provided any factual basis to show that providing
a fluid connection between second and third modules 300a, 402 of Shumway's
first and second process blocks 300a-300e, 400, respectively, necessarily provides
"simplicity" or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to
be the case. See Final Act. 4, 9.
For example, Shumway discloses coker unit 400 fluidly connected to one or
more refining units 300a-300e via pipe rack 436. See Shumway, paras. 24, 42,
Figs. 1, 4. We, thus, agree with Appellants that in the case of multiple refining
units 300a-300e,
[ w ]ithout piperack 436, each individual fluid line of Shumway
connecting each of the refining units 300a-300e to coker unit
400 must be individually routed and connected so as to avoid
interference with the other fluid line connections and so as to
avoid overcrowding the available open areas between the units
300a-300e and 400.
Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 7-8. Hence, Appellants are correct that
removing Shumway's pipe rack 436 in favor of a direct connection "would be
expected to reduce uniformity and simplicity by eliminating a component ... that
5
Appeal2018-004294
Application 14/747,727
bundles, organizes, and supports what could otherwise be a tangled jumble of a
multitude of interconnecting fluid lines." Appeal Br. 19 (bolding omitted).
Furthermore, even if a single refining unit 300 is connected to coker unit
400, we do not agree with the Examiner that a direct connection "is more efficient
and simple than a pipe rack" in the arrangement of Shumway. Ans. 4. Shumway
specifically discloses that modular refinery unit 100 is scalable such that its
capacity may be increased or decreased depending on demand by adding or
removing refining units 300. See Shumway, paras. 24, 46. Hence, a skilled
artisan would acknowledge that providing a direct connection instead of pipe rack
436 in the system of Shumway, when a single refining unit 300 is connected to
coker unit 400, is not necessarily "more efficient and simple" as adding more
refining units later as demand increases would require replacing the direct fluid
connection with pipe rack 436. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962)
( An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what
the reference discloses.). In this case, the skilled artisan would find it simpler to
install pipe rack 436 even when a single refining unit 300 is connected to coker
unit 400 because of Shumway's modular features that permits capacity to be
increased depending on demand.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellants that "the
Examiner has failed to articulate a prima facie case of obviousness." Reply Br. 6.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-18, and 20-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shumway and Roblin. 5
5 As we have determined that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is not
supported by sufficient factual evidence, we do not need to reach the merits of the
Declarations filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by co-inventor Fred Haney on April
22, 2016 and March 23, 2017.
6
Appeal2018-004294
Application 14/747,727
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 9-18, and 20-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shumway and Roblin is reversed.
REVERSED
7