Ex Parte Harinck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2017

14239617 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2017)

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.
14/239,617 02/19/2014 John Harinck BJS-5984-3 9159
23117 7590 06/19/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
VADEN, KENNETH I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN HARINCK and KLAAS GERRIT SMIT
Appeal 2016-007666
Application 14/239,617
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed February 19, 2014; Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”) dated June 4, 2015; Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.”) dated December 14, 2015; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated June 13,
2016; and Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated August 9, 2016.
2 Appellants identify GENSOS HOLDING B.V. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007666
Application 14/239,617
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a process for gasification of
wet biomass. Spec. 1. Sole independent claim 1 is reproduced below from
the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A process for the gasification of wet biomass,
which process comprises
- feeding the wet biomass at a temperature of at most 370
°C and a pressure of at least 22.1 MPa (absolute) to a reactor
comprising a fluidised bed of solid particles suspended in a
fluid,
- increasing the temperature of the feed in the presence of
the fluidised bed of suspended solid particles to a temperature
of at least 375 °C, forming supercritical water, and
- converting in the presence of the supercritical water at
least a portion of the organic materials present in the wet
biomass into fluid gasification product.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:3
I. Claims 1—8, 10, and 15—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gu.4
II. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gu and Chakravarti.5
III. Claims 11—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gu and Matsumura.6
3 Final Act. 5—10; Ans. 2—8.
4 US 2011/0302833 Al, published December 15, 2011 (“Gu”).
5 US 2011/0218254 Al, published September 8, 2011 (“Chakravarti”).
6 JP2007269945 (A), published October 18, 2007 (“Matsumura”), as
translated.
2
Appeal 2016-007666
Application 14/239,617
IV. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gu and either Werner7 or Pschom.8
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellants argue the claims subject to Rejection I as a group. App.
Br. 7—15. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1
as representative and decide the appeal as to Rejection I based on the
representative claim alone.
The Examiner finds that Gu discloses a gasification process that
includes all of the recited process steps, except that Gu does not specify the
feed temperature and pressure entering the fluidized bed reactor. Final
Act. 5—6. Particularly, the Examiner finds that Gu discloses feeding aqueous
biomass from a first reactor that operates under sub-critical conditions to a
fluidized bed reactor that operates at supercritical temperature and pressure.
Id. at 5. See also Gu 113 (“The temperature and pressure in the first reactor
is in the sub-critical water state.”); id. 115 (“[T]he second reactor is
connected with the first reactor in series and the temperature and pressure in
the second reactor is in the supercritical water state.”). With regard to the
temperature and pressure of the second reactor feed, the Examiner finds that
Gu teaches that catalyst separates from supercritical water in the second
reactor. Final Act. 6. For that reason, the Examiner determines that one of
ordinary skill would have been motivated to maintain the feed stream under
7 US 2011/0089271 Al, published April 21, 2011 (“Werner”).
8 US 2012/0211512 Al, published August 23, 2012 (“Pschom”).
3
Appeal 2016-007666
Application 14/239,617
sub-critical conditions prior to entering the second reactor, so as to prevent
premature separation of catalyst. Id.
Appellants argue that Gu’s process involves gasification of coal, not
biomass. App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue that “there is no suggestion
in Gu to apply a wet biomass as the feed in Gu’s process.” Id. at 11. These
arguments are unpersuasive. While Gu teaches use of the disclosed process
for coal gasification, Gu also teaches gasification of biomass. E.g., Gu 126
(“Obviously, the method of the invention can not only apply to the coal, but
also apply to all kind of carbonaceous materials such as petroleum coke,
biomass, and so on.”). Thus, Appellants’ argument that Gu fails to suggest
treatment of biomass is contrary to the express teaching in Gu.
Appellants acknowledge that Gu teaches that the catalyst feed solution
is not in a supercritical state until it enters the second reactor. App. Br. 12.
Appellants contend, however, that Gu “also suggests that the catalyst
solution as such may be fed directly into [the] second reactor,” and, for that
reason, does not suggest that the separately fed first reactor products also are
not in a supercritical state. Id. Appellants’argument is not persuasive. Gu
teaches that the catalyst solution may be fed directly into the second reactor
or into the connecting pipe between the first reactor and the second reactor.
Gu 13. Gu also teaches that the process can be performed with an
integrated reactor having a series of tandem reaction regions, such that
catalyst and biomass would be fed directly from a first region that is not
under supercritical conditions to a second region that is under supercritical
conditions. Id. f23. In light of these teachings in Gu, we are persuaded that
4
Appeal 2016-007666
Application 14/239,617
a preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Gu
teaches providing a sub-critical feed stream to the second reactor.
Appellants additionally argue that “Gu does not specifically teach that
the reactors operating under conditions of supercritical water may be
fluidized bed reactors.” App. Br. 12. We disagree. Gu expressly states that
“[t]he reactor used in the invention may be a commonly used reactor, such
as fluidized bed reactor . . . .” Gu 120 (emphasis added).
Appellants newly argue in the Reply Brief that one of ordinary skill
would not have considered treating biomass by Gu’s method because Gu’s
process involves transformation of coal to semi-coke in the first reactor,
which transformation would not occur in the absence of coal. Reply Br. 5—
7. However, the involvement of semi-coke in Gu’s process as applied to
coal does not negate Gu’s express teaching that the process may be
performed on biomass. Moreover, Gu teaches co-processing of coal and
biomass. See Gu 13 (discussing “co-gasification of coal and biomass”); id.
112 (“The coal used in the invention may be selected from bituminous coal,
anthracite, lignite, biomass, organic waste and mixture thereof ”) (emphasis
added). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Gu’s teaching that coal is
transformed to semi-coke in the first reactor negates Gu’s additional
teaching that biomass is a suitable feed material.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of reversible error.
We sustain Rejection I.
Rejections II—IV
Appellants do not present any separate argument against
Rejections II—IV other than reliance on the arguments made in connection
5
Appeal 2016-007666
Application 14/239,617
with Rejection I. See App. Br. 15—18. Accordingly, we sustain these
Rejections for the reasons given in connection with Rejection I.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18 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.
AFFIRMED
6