Ex Parte JagerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 10, 201511792450 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2015) 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. 11/792,450 06/06/2007 Marco Dick Jager TS8591US 3706 23632 7590 06/11/2015 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/11/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARCO DICK JAGER ____________________ Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Marco Dick Jager (Appellant)1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–26 and 28–32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for producing a liquefied natural gas stream. Spec. 1:2–3. Claims 1 and 13 are independent 1 Appellant indicates that the real party in interest is Shell Oil Company. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 2 claims. Claim 27 is canceled. Appeal Br. 15, Claims App. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of producing a liquefied natural gas stream, wherein before liquefaction heavier hydrocarbon components having a molecular weight higher than that of butane are removed from a natural gas stream to be liquefied, the method at least comprising the steps of: providing a substantially vaporous feed stream of natural gas at a feed stream pressure and a feed stream temperature; feeding the feed stream into a distillation column having two or more separation stages; drawing a bottom stream from a lower part of the distillation column and an overhead stream from an upper part of the distillation column, the overhead stream containing a lower relative amount of the heavier hydrocarbon components than the bottom stream; and liquefying at least a part of the overhead stream thereby obtaining a liquefied natural gas stream; wherein the step of feeding the feed stream into the distillation column comprises the sub steps of: splitting the feed stream, in a feed stream junction that is not a phase separator, into first and second substreams at a selected split ratio; feeding the first substream into the distillation column via a first feed point of the distillation column below the lowest separation stage thereof, wherein the first substream is not warmed between splitting the feed stream and feeding of the first substream at the first feed point into the distillation column; cooling the second substream in a heat exchanger to a lower temperature than the feed stream temperature; and feeding the cooled second substream into the distillation column at a second feed point overhead of the first feed point wherein the pressure of the second substream is not deliberately lowered; and wherein a temperature in the bottom of the distillation column is controlled by controlling the split ratio. Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Pryor Holmes Durr Sorensen US 4,002,042 US 4,318,723 US 5,325,673 US 5,685,170 Jan. 11, 1977 Mar. 9, 1982 July 5, 1994 Nov. 11, 1997 Patel Mak US 2004/0172967 A1 US 2004/0261452 A1 Sept. 9, 2004 Dec. 30, 2004 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–16, 18–26, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen and Mak. Final Act. 2. II. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen, Mak, and Holmes. Final Act. 10. III. Claims 11 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen, Mak, and Pryor. Final Act. 11. IV. Claims 1, 13, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel and Sorensen. Final Act. 12. V. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, Sorensen, and Mak. Final Act. 14. VI. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, Sorensen, and Durr. Final Act. 15. Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 4 ANALYSIS Rejection I Independent claims 1 and 13 each recite “wherein a temperature in the bottom of the distillation column is controlled by controlling the split ratio.” Appeal Br. 11, 13, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Sorenson discloses the quoted subject matter. Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that “the temperatures of the streams entering the column dictate the temperature in the column, including the bottom; by virtue of splitting the streams and sending one stream to the bottom of the column, the bottom temperature is being controlled by the split ratio.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant initially argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the terms “controlled by” and “controlling” to encompass “a completely passive fixed connection having a fixed output” is unreasonable in view of the plain meaning of these terms and in light of the claim language and Specification. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant provides dictionary definitions of the word “control,” including “to exercise the power to regulate, dominate, or manipulate;” “the ability or power to decide or strongly influence the particular way in which something will happen;” and “the power to make decisions about something.” Id. at 6. Appellant urges that, as to the term “controlling the split ratio,” the claims and “[S]pecification refer[] to the ability to select or vary the split ratio as desired.” Id. (referencing Spec. ¶ 30). The Examiner responds that claims 1 and 13 do not provide any structure or method step that adjusts or varies the split ratio. Answer 3. The Examiner states the split ratio can be controlled “by merely keeping the ratio constant,” as is accomplished by a standard split in a pipe. Id. This standard split controls the split ratio by maintaining the established mass flow ratio. Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 5 Id. The Examiner further explains that, by sending the split sub-streams with this maintained split ratio into the column, the temperature of the column is controlled by the split ratio. Id. at 4. That is, a system with a junction that divides an incoming stream into two sub-streams with a fixed split ratio passively controls (maintains) that split ratio and, by sending one of these sub-streams into the bottom of the column, controls the temperature in the bottom of the column. In reply, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation renders the term “controlling” superfluous—that the claim recitation “wherein a temperature . . . is controlled by controlling the split ratio” becomes “wherein a temperature . . . is controlled by the split ratio”—contrary to the law governing claim construction. See Reply 2 (citing Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Foremost In Packaging Sys. v. Cold Chain Techs., 485 F.3d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Bicon v. Straumann, 441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appellant contends that, instead, the Specification dictates separate aspects of the recited controlling—providing a split ratio and then controlling that ratio, such as by varying the ratio. Id. We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. It is well established that “claims under examination before the [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). We agree with the Examiner that a broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms “controlled by” and “controlling” encompass a structure and method that maintain a certain split ratio of an input stream into sub-streams—that is, a structure that provides passive control of the split ratio. This interpretation is consistent with the plain Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 6 meaning of the term. See, e.g., MERRIAM WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control (last visited June 2, 2015) (defining “control” as “to direct the actions or function of (something): to cause (something) to act or function in a certain way”). A junction with a fixed split ratio causes the input gas stream to act in a certain way in accordance with the split ratio defined by the junction. See Answer 3–4. We find Appellant’s dependence on paragraph 30 of the Specification2 in support of his position that the terms “controlled by” and “controlling” require the ability to actively vary the split ratio unavailing. See Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. Although the referenced part of the Specification discloses a selectable or controllably variable split ratio—that is, an active control of the split ratio—other sections of the Specification suggest embodiments with a passive control of the split ratio. For example, page 9, lines 19–23 states that “[t]he feed stream junction 2 is arranged to divide the feed stream in accordance with a specified split ratio, which is defined as the mass flow rate of the first substream divided by the mass flow rate of the second substream.” Similarly, page 12, lines 7–9 of the Specification states that “[t]he feed stream is split into first and second substreams 3a, 3b in feed stream junction 2, preferably in the form of minor and major substreams.” Neither of these disclosures discusses varying the split ratio. The Specification further states that “[t]he relatively cool major substream 7, together with the relatively warm minor substream 3a, contributes to maintaining the desired temperature gradient inside the scrub column 10.” Spec. 12:32–132. The Specification explains that: It is possible to control the split ratio between the major and minor substreams. Herewith the temperature gradient and/or the 2 Paragraph 30 is page 6, lines 17–20 of the Specification as originally filed. Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 7 temperature in the bottom of the scrub column 10 can be controlled. It has been found that the split ratio is preferably chosen smaller than 1/5 in order to assure that the temperature in the scrub column is sufficiently low to achieve an efficient separation of heavier hydrocarbon components from the mixture. More preferably the split ratio is chosen smaller than 1/10. Spec. 13:3–11. Again, this disclosure does not discuss actively varying the split ratio during operation or disclose any apparatus used to vary the split ratio actively. These discussions indicate that the concept of controlling the temperature of the bottom region of the scrub column may be achieved by maintaining a fixed split ratio, such as a ratio of 1/5. Appellant’s position that the terms “controlled by” and “controlling” require the ability to actively vary the split ratio attempts to improperly read an embodiment from the Specification into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.”) (citation omitted). We further find Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s construction reads the term “controlling” out of the claims unavailing. As the Examiner correctly finds, and Appellant’s Specification supports, “controlling the split ratio” may be accomplished by maintaining that ratio at the desired level, such as 1/5—a passive controlling. See Answer 3–4. As such, the word “controlling” is not read out of the claim. In traversing Rejection I, Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Sorenson and Mak fail to teach the claim element “wherein a temperature in the bottom of the distillation column is controlled by controlling the split ratio” recited in claims 1 and 13. Appeal Br. 7. This argument finds support in Appellant’s claim construction argument, which we find unpersuasive. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, we find Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 8 this argument unpersuasive and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen and Mak. Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claims 2–5, 7– 10, 12, 14–16, 18–26, 29, and 31, which depend, directly or indirectly, from either claim 1 or claim 13. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen and Mak. Rejections II and III In traversing Rejections II and III, Appellant relies on the arguments made in support of traversing Rejection I. See Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant further argues that neither Holmes (Rejection II) nor Pryor (Rejection III) remedies the deficiency identified with respect to Rejection I—that the combined teachings of Sorenson and Mak fail to teach the claim element “wherein a temperature in the bottom of the distillation column is controlled by controlling the split ratio” recited in claims 1 and 13. See Appeal Br. 7– 8. As discussed above in connection with our analysis of Rejection I, we find no such deficiency. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen, Mak, and Holmes and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen, Mak, and Pryor. Rejection IV The Examiner further rejects independent claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel and Sorensen. In making this rejection, the Examiner finds that Patel discloses the claim Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 9 element “wherein a temperature in the bottom of the distillation column is controlled by controlling the split ratio” recited in claims 1 and 13. Final Act. 13. The Examiner relies on Patel’s disclosure that inlet gas 12 splits into sub-streams 12a and 12b, with these sub-streams subsequently fed into column 28. See id.; see also Patel, Figs. 2 and 4, ¶ 18. Appellant argues that “Patel does not clearly and unambiguously teach variation of the split ratio during operation”—relying again on Appellant’s rejected construction for the terms “controlled by” and “controlling.” See Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). As discussed above in connection with our analysis of Rejection I, we find this argument unpersuasive as claims 1 and 13 do not require actively varying the split ratio during operation. Appellant further argues that the temperature of the bottom of Patel’s column is controlled by a bypass, not by the split ratio of the input gas stream. See id. As Appellant explains, Patel discloses, at Fig. 4 and paragraph 19, that sub-steam 12a and sub-stream 12b can be swapped, with the colder of the two sub-streams fed into the top of the column and the other sub-stream fed into the bottom of the column. Id. at 8–9; see also Patel, Fig. 4 and ¶ 18. Appellant contends that this swapping, and not the split ratio of the two sub-streams, controls the temperature of the bottom of the column. We find this argument unpersuasive. As the Examiner correctly responds, Patel’s system maintains the split ratio of sub-streams 12a and 12b and this split ratio controls the temperature of the column because, “the temperatures of the streams entering the column dictate the temperature of the column, including the bottom, [so] by virtue of splitting the streams and sending one stream to the bottom of the column, the bottom temperature is Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 10 being controlled by the split ratio.” Answer 6 (emphasis omitted). That is, regardless of which sub-stream enters the bottom of the column, the split ratio dictates the temperature of this stream and, as such, the temperature at the bottom of the column. Appellant does not inform us of error in this finding. For the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel and Sorensen. Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claim 18, which depends from claim 1. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel and Sorensen. Rejections V and VI In traversing Rejections V and VI, Appellant relies on the arguments made in support of traversing Rejection IV. See Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues that neither Mak (Rejection V) nor Durr (Rejection VI) remedy the deficiency identified with respect to Rejection IV— that the combined teachings of Patel and Sorenson fail to teach the claim element “wherein a temperature in the bottom of the distillation column is controlled by controlling the split ratio” recited in claims 1 and 13. As discussed above in connection with our analysis of Rejection IV, we find no such deficiency. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, Sorensen, and Mak and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, Sorensen, and Durr. Appeal 2013-004868 Application 11/792,450 11 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–16, 18– 26, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen and Mak. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen, Mak, and Holmes. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sorensen, Mak, and Pryor. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 13, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel and Sorensen. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, Sorensen, and Mak. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, Sorensen, and Durr. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2014). AFFIRMED JRG Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation