Ex Parte Jewell et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 9, 2011

11801961 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 9, 2011)

 
 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DENNIS WADE JEWELL, JOHN P. HENLEY,
EDWARD E. TIMM, TARVER GAYLE SNEDECOR Jr.,
LEOPOLD SALINAS III, CHARLES WILLIAM LIPP, and
JAMES EVERETT CLARK
________________

Appeal 2011-001183
Application 11/801,961
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 2-20, 22, 24-34, 47
and 48. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 2 is illustrative:

Appeal 2011-001183
Application 11/801,961

2
2. A process for converting a feed comprised substantially of
halogenated materials to one or more useful products selected from one or
more useable or salable halogen acid products in aqueous or anhydrous form
and a product synthesis gas comprised of carbon monoxide and hydrogen,
which process includes the steps of:

a) providing the feed, an oxygen source and a supplemental
hydrogen-containing co-feed as required to enable the conversion
of substantially all of the halogenated materials in the feed to a
corresponding hydrogen halide, to a partial oxidation reforming
reactor zone under reducing conditions; wherein the co-feed is one
selected from the group consisting of methane and a mixture of
methane and steam;

b) recovering from the reactor zone a reaction product comprised of
one or more hydrogen halides, water, carbon monoxide and
hydrogen but containing essentially no unconverted halogenated
materials; and

c) separating out and recovering without an intervening neutralization
step from the reaction product, either or both of i) one or more
useable or salable halogen acid products in aqueous or anhydrous
form and ii) a product synthesis gas comprised of carbon monoxide
and hydrogen.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 5):
Eastman 2,928,460 Mar. 15, 1960
Buschmann 3,874,592 Apr. 1, 1975
Schulz 4,950,309 Aug. 21, 1990

H. H. Ertl, Incineration Plant for Liquid and Gaseous Chlorinated Wastes,
in Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Incineration and
Thermal Treatment Technologies, 15-17 (Oakland, California, 1997).

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a process for converting a
feed of halogenated materials to a reaction product comprising one or more
Appeal 2011-001183
Application 11/801,961

3
hydrogen halides, water, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. An oxygen source
and a supplemental hydrogen-containing co-feed is provided along with the
feed to a reforming reactor zone. The co-feed consists of methane or a
mixture of methane and steam.
Appealed claims 2-20, 22, 24-34, and 47- 48 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schulz in view of Ertl.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for the
claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection.
A principal argument advanced by Appellants is that the combination
of Schulz and Ertl does not teach all the features of claim 2, in particular, a
co-feed consisting of methane or a mixture of methane and steam which
enters the reaction zone. In response, the Examiner erroneously maintains
that claim 2 only requires the provision of a supplemental hydrogen-
containing co-feed but does not require that the hydrogen-containing co-feed
enters the reaction zone. However, as pointed out by Appellants, step (a) in
claim 2 recites that the feed, an oxygen source, and a supplemental
hydrogen-containing co-feed is provided to a partial oxidation reforming
reactor zone under reducing conditions. Hence, it cannot be gainsaid that
claim 2 requires providing a feed comprising hydrogen to the reaction zone.
Schulz teaches that suitable mixers/burners are disclosed in Eastman
and Buschmann, and the Examiner submits that the methane used in the
burners of Eastman and Buschmann would be used in the process of Schulz
wherein methane would combust at the burner tip which is considered in the
Appeal 2011-001183
Application 11/801,961

4
reaction zone (Ans. 10, first para.). The flaw in the Examiner’s reasoning,
however, is that neither Schulz, nor Eastman, nor Buschmann provides a
suggestion of modifying a co-feed of Schulz to include methane, as required
by the appealed claims.
Appellants rely upon a § 132 Declaration as evidence of unexpected
results. However, inasmuch as we find that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, it is not necessary to consider
the probative value of the declaration.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.

REVERSED

ssl