Ex Parte Hu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 19, 2011

10801424 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RUIZHONG HU, XINJIN ZHAO, RICHARD FRANKLIN
WORMSBECHER and MICHAEL SCOTT ZIEBARTH
____________

Appeal 2010-001465
Application 10/801,424
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
refusal to allow claims 1 through 29 and 31 through 44. Claims 45 through
71, the other claims pending in the above-identified application, stand
withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2010-001465
Application 10/801,424

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a fluidizable cracking
catalyst composition comprising a zeolite, a Lewis Acid-containing
component, and an inorganic oxide matrix, with Na2O being 0.20 percent by
weight or less based on the total composition. (See claim 1 and Spec. 6,
para. 0019). According to page 6, paragraph 0019, of the Specification,
This invention is based on the discovery that sodium
affects the Lewis Acid sites believed to be responsible for
catalyzing sulfur reduction brought about by Lewis Acid-based
gasoline sulfur reduction additives. The Na2O content in the
catalyst of this invention is generally 0.20% or less. It has been
discovered that if the Na2O level of the catalyst composition is
relatively greater than that, the number of Lewis Acid sites in
the composition is significantly reduced and therefore there is a
decrease in the ability of the composition to reduce gasoline
sulfur.

The Specification shows the importance of treating zeolite and matrix
components, e.g., zeolites and alumina sources, to reduce Na2O contents
and/or identifying zeolite and matrix components having little Na2O contents
for inclusion in the catalyst composition. (See Spec. 9-10, paras. 0030-0034
and Spec. 14, paras. 0048 and 0049.) Example 1, at pages 20 through 23 of
the Specification, shows that the Na2O level in the cracking catalyst
composition has a significant effect on the sulfur reduction during the FCC
(fluidized catalyst cracking) process. (See also Spec. 20 and 21, Tables 1
and 2.)
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative
claim 1 reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.”) filed March 20, 2009 as shown below:
Appeal 2010-001465
Application 10/801,424

3
1. A cracking catalyst composition capable of
being maintained in a fluidized state within a fluid cracking catalyst unit
used in cracking hydrocarbon feedstock containing organic sulfur containing
compounds, the cracking catalyst composition comprising
(a) Zeolite;
(b) Lewis Acid-containing component; and
(c) inorganic oxide matrix;
wherein the cracking catalyst composition further comprises 0.20
percent by weight Na20 or less, and wherein the average particle size of
the cracking catalyst composition is in the range of 20 to 150 microns.

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following references at page 3 of the Answer
(“Ans.”) filed dated November 10, 2009:
Chen US 4,627,911 Dec. 9, 1986
Nakaoka US 5,686,374 Nov. 11, 1997

As evidence of patentability of the claimed subject matter, Appellants
rely on the following references (App. Br. 38):
Penick US 4,705,621 Nov. 10, 1987
Kunii et al., Fluidization Engineering, 2nd Ed., Butterworth-Heinmann, a
division of Reed Publishing Inc. (1991), pp. 77-79 and 93 (hereinafter
referred to as “Kunii”)
Magee et al., Fluid Catalytic Cracking: Science and Technology, Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V. (1993), pp. 339-346 (hereinafter referred to as
“Magee”).
Appeal 2010-001465
Application 10/801,424

4
Appellants request review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 29 and 31 through 44 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Nakaoka and Chen (App. Br. 5).
RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, ISSUE
AND CONCLUSION
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
To carry that burden, the Examiner relies upon Nakaoka for the claimed
cracking catalyst composition and Chen for the claimed cracking catalyst
particle sizes (Ans. 3-5). On the other hand, Appellants contend, inter alia,
that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Nakaoka teaches or would have
suggested a cracking catalyst composition having the claimed ingredients,
including the claimed sodium content (App. Br. 16-18).
Thus, the dispositive question raised here is: Have Appellants shown
that the Examiner erred in finding that Nakaoka teaches or would have
suggested a cracking catalyst composition comprising a zeolite, a Lewis
Acid-containing component, and an inorganic oxide matrix, with Na2O
being 0.20 percent by weight or less based on the total composition within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)? On this record, we answer this question
in the affirmative.
As found by the Examiner at page 3 of the Answer, Nakaoka
exemplifies catalyst compositions having 58.2 to 75% by weight of alumina
corresponding to the claimed matrix, 15 to 30% by weight of Y type zeolite
and 2 to 5% by weight of zinc oxide corresponding to the claimed Lewis
Acid-containing component. (See also col. 9, Table 2, Examples 1-6.)
According to col. 2, ll. 51-61, of Nakaoka, Y type zeolite is treated to reduce
Appeal 2010-001465
Application 10/801,424

5
its alkali (e.g., sodium) content to 0.5% by weight or less to stabilize the
crystal structure of Y type zeolite. However, the Examiner has not shown
that Nakaoka inherently or expressly teaches or would have suggested
employing an alumina having a very low alkali (sodium) content in its
catalyst composition to arrive at the claimed catalyst having 0.20 weight
percent or less sodium content. In particular, the Examiner has not shown
that Nakaoka teaches or would have suggested treating an alumina to reduce
the alkali (sodium) content or identifying an alumina having low or no alkali
(sodium) content for inclusion in its catalyst composition. Nor has the
Examiner shown that Nakaoka teaches or suggests the importance of
reducing the alkali (sodium) content in its catalyst composition.
It follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Nakaoka teaches or would have suggested a cracking catalyst
composition comprising a zeolite, a Lewis Acid-containing component, and
an inorganic oxide matrix, with Na2O being 0.20 percent by weight or less
based on the total composition within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ORDER
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1
through 29 and 31 through 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Nakaoka and Chen is REVERSED.
REVERSED

tc