Ex Parte Hart et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 201711992068 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/992,068 02/16/2010 Allan Hart TS9780-US-PCT 4442 23632 7590 11/17/2017 SHF! T OH miUPANY EXAMINER P 0 BOX 576 ALOSH, TAREQ M HOUSTON, TX 77001-0576 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/17/2017 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): USPatents@Shell.com Shelldocketing@cpaglobal.com shellusdocketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALLAN HART and ROBERT AMIN Appeal 2016-001389 Application 11/992,068 Technology Center 3700 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, GORDON D. KINDER, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEALSTATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 38 and 40-52.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We are informed that the real party in interest is Shell Oil Company. (Appeal Br., filed June 15, 2015, 2). 2 Appellants also seek review of the Examiner’s objection to the drawing, Figure 4 (Appeal Br. 3, 4), but this matter is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 and, thus, is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 98A-5 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Appeal 2016-001389 Application 11/992,068 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a process for removal of sour species from a natural gas stream. Spec. 1:6—73. Independent claim 38 and dependent claims 40-52 are pending. Claim 38 is reproduced below to illustrate the claimed subject matter. 38. A process for removing a sour species from a dehydrated natural gas feed stream comprising the steps of: (a) cooling the dehydrated natural gas feed stream and forming in a solids formation zone in a vessel a slurry of solid sour species and hydrocarbon liquids, and a gas containing gaseous sour species by expanding said feed stream with a gas expander configured to define an inlet in the vessel; (b) separating the gas containing gaseous sour species and the slurry, and directing the gas to a gas salvation zone using a fluid communication device; and, (c) treating the gas containing gaseous sour species with a liquid solvent in the gas salvation zone and forming a dehydrated sweetened gas and a liquid solution of the sour species. (App. Br., Claims Appendix, 9). REJECTIONS Claims 38, 40-42 and 46—52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Valencia et al. (US Pat. No. 5,265,428, herein referred to as “Valencia ’428”). Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the obvious modification of Valencia ’428. 3 We herein refer to the Specification filed Mar. 14, 2008 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed Sept. 11, 2014 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Jun. 15, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 28, 2015 (“Ans.”). 2 Appeal 2016-001389 Application 11/992,068 Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Valencia ’428, in view of Amin et al. (US 7,152,431 herein referred to as “Amin”). Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Valencia ’428, in view of Valencia et al. (US Pat. No. 4,533,372, herein referred to as Valencia ’372). ANALYSIS Claims 38, 40—42, and 46—52 Appellants argue claims 38, 40-42, and 46—52 as a group. Appeal Br. 5—6. We select claim 38 as representative, and the remaining claims in this group stand or fall with claim 38. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Valencia ’428 discloses all the limitations of claim 38. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Valencia ’428 discloses: cooling (via cooler 100 and expansion valve 102) (col. 2, lines 37-43) the dehydrated natural gas feed stream (10) and forming a solids formation zone (controlled free zone 108) in a vessel (104) a slurry of solid sour species and hydrocarbon liquids (i.e. liquid mix 137 illustrated in figure 3 — see col. 3, lines 16—25), and a gas containing gaseous sour species (i.e. boil- off gas is inevitable from liquid mix 137.[ and . . . ] expanding (turbine expander or JT valve 102 — see col. 3, lines 37-43) said feed stream (10) with a gas expander (102) configured to define an inlet in the vessel (i.e. schematic 102 is immediately before the inlet of the vessel 104). Final Act. 3. Appellants first argue that Valencia ’428 does not disclose “a gas expander configured to define an inlet in [a] vessel.” Appeal Br. 5. They support this by noting that the gas expander in Valencia 428 is never 3 Appeal 2016-001389 Application 11/992,068 described as defining an inlet. Id. Appellants also argue that Valencia ’428 makes it clear that the J-T valve 102 does not define an inlet but instead is located before the inlet, and, consequently, this limitation is not disclosed by Valencia ’428. Id. The Examiner responds that “a gas expander configured to define an inlet in the vessel” must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation and read in light of the specification. Ans. 9. The Examiner then notes that, in response to a restriction requirement, the Appellants elected the species illustrated in Figure 1. Ans. 9, fh. 1. Comparing Figure 1 of the Specification to Figure 2 of Valencia ’428, the Examiner finds the identical arrangement of gas expander and vessel inlet. Ans. 10. From this comparison, the Examiner concludes “Appellants’ gas expander, vessel and inlet thereto is disclosed to have the exact same arrangement or configuration as those of Valencia ’428.” Id. The Examiner also notes that Appellants do not describe how the disputed limitation distinguishes from Valencia ’428, nor do they cite to the Specification for a different interpretation of the challenged claim limitation from that found by the examiner in rejecting claim 38. We agree with the Examiner and decline to adopt a definition of “a gas expander configured to define an inlet in the vessel” that may contradict a preferred embodiment in the Appellants’ Specification. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim interpretation excluding the preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support). We interpret “a gas expander configured to define an inlet in the vessel” as including the arrangement shown in the Specification, Figure 1, and the identical 4 Appeal 2016-001389 Application 11/992,068 arrangement shown in Valencia ’428. Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Valencia ’428 discloses “a gas expander configured to define an inlet in the vessel.” Next, the Appellants argue that Valencia ’428 does not disclose “cooling the dehydrated natural gas feed stream and forming in a solids formation zone in a vessel a slurry of solid sour species and hydrocarbon liquids, and a gas containing gaseous sour species by expanding said feed stream with a gas expander.” Appeal Br. 5, quoting Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix). After describing the manner of operation of Valencia ’428, Appellants conclude, “[according to Valencia ’428 no carbon dioxide solids are formed by expansion of a gas stream, and not at the point where the feed stream enters the vessel (i.e. lower distillation section 106 in Valencia ’428).” Id., at 6 (italics omitted). The Examiner responds that the Appellants’ argument depends on finding that Valencia ’428 requires forming a slurry by expanding the feed stream with a gas expander only “at the point where the feed stream enters the vessel.’ '’ Ans. 11—12. The Examiner notes that there is no dispute that “Valencia ’428 teaches formation of solid sour species and liquid hydrocarbons in a solid formation zone (108) of the vessel (104), and formation of a gas containing gaseous sour species being formed by expansion (102) of a dehydrated natural gas feed (10).” Ans. 11—12 (citing Valencia ’428 at 2:61—3:2).4 Therefore, Appellants’ argument must rest on the alleged limitation that the slurry and gaseous sour species must be formed “at the point where the feed stream enters the vessel.” 4 Appellants chose not to file a Reply Brief. 5 Appeal 2016-001389 Application 11/992,068 The Examiner correctly points out that claim 38 has no limitation bearing on where the slurry and gaseous sour species must be formed. Ans. 12. Because, as discussed above, there is no dispute that Valencia ’428 forms the claimed slurry, and claim 38 does not limit where this formation may occur, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claim 38. Claims 40-42 and 46—52 fall with claim 38. Claim 43 Appellants contend the rejection of claim 43 in view of Valencia ’428 is improper not only because all claim limitations are not disclosed by Valencia ’428 (arguments we find unpersuasive for reasons similar to those discussed supra), but also because the Examiner has provided no motivation for modifying Valencia ’428 to meet the limitations of claim 43. In the Final Action, the Examiner states that the modification would be made “for the purpose of ensuring that all the solid sour species (carbon dioxide) is fully melting [sic], providing optimal operation to the method of Valencia ’428.” Final Act. 7. Because we find that the Examiner has provided a rational reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Valencia ’428 in the manner claimed in claim 43, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 43. Claim 44 Appellants argue claim 44 is patentable for the same reasons that claim 38 is patentable and further because the additional reference, Amin, does not cure the asserted deficiencies of Valencia ’428. Appeal Br. 7. 6 Appeal 2016-001389 Application 11/992,068 Because we find no deficiency in the rejection of claim 38, we affirm the rejection of claim 44. Claim 45 Claim 45 is rejected over combination of Valencia ’428 and Valencia ’372. Appellants argue claim 45 is patentable for the same reasons that claim 38 was argued to be patentable and further that Valencia ’372 does not cure the deficiencies of Valencia ’428. Appeal Br. 7. This argument fails to point to any particular error and, thus, fails to “explain why the examiner erred as to [the] ground of rejection contested.” 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(iv). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 45. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 38 and 40—52 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation