Ex Parte JI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

12985051 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/985,051 01/05/2011
70312 7590 09/22/2016
CDTech/Lummus/Osha Liang LLP
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN STREET, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shuncheng JI
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
17344/312002 3512
EXAMINER
NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
DOCKETING@OSHALIANG.COM
bergman@oshaliang.com
griffith@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUNCHENG JI, CHANCELOR L. WILLIAMS, and
RON W. HERBANEK 1
Appeal2015-002979
Application 12/985,051
Technology Center 1700
Before WESLEY B. DERRICK, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-16 in the above-identified application. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Catalytic Distillation
Technologies, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lummus Technology
Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002979
Application 12/985,051
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "an improvement that allows
the production of synthesis gas from a gasification reactor that has a low
methane concentration," which "does not require expensive treatment of the
syngas to remove excess methane prior to utilization of the syngas as a
feedstock for the industrial-scale production of a variety of chemicals."
Spec. i-f 3. Independent claim 1 is representative:
1. A process for [sic] comprising the following steps:
a) providing a gasification reactor that comprises at least one
reaction zone having a first outlet and a quench section
having a second outlet, wherein the quench section cools
molten ash and removes it via the second outlet;
b) partially oxidizing a carbonaceous feedstock in the at
least one reaction zone to produce a product gas comprising
H2, CO, and methane, wherein a first portion of the product
gas exits the reactor via the first outlet;
c) extracting a second portion of the product gas from a
third outlet in the quench section of the gasifier, thereby
producing an extraction gas comprising a reduced methane
content relative to the product gas of step b);
d) routing the extraction gas to serve as carbonaceous
feedstock for the production of chemicals.
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). Independent claim 10 contains similar
limitations including a step similar to the highlighted language above, and
specifically requires first and second reaction zones for partial oxidation and
pyrolysis, respectively. See id. at 17-18.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
2
Appeal2015-002979
Application 12/985,051
I. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Douglas2 in view of Berggren. 3 Final Action 2--4.
II. Claims 2--4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Douglas and Berggren in view of Wieland. 4 Final
Action 5-9.
III. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Douglas in view of Berggren, and further in view of
Leininger. 5 Final Action 10.
IV. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Douglas in view of Berggren, and further in view of
Mamedov. 6 Final Action 11-12.
V. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Douglas and Berggren in view of Moon. 7 Final Action
12-13.
VI. Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
1 • ' ' 1 1 T"""'\. 1 • • l'~ T • • 1 oemg unpatemao1e over uougias m view or tlerggren, Lemmger, ana
Mamedov. Final Action 14--16.
2 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2009/0038222 Al (published Feb. 12,
2009) [hereinafter Douglas].
3 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2008/0028680 Al (published Feb. 7,
2008) [hereinafter Berggren].
4 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2003/0116472 Al (published June
26, 2003) [hereinafter Wieland].
5 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2009/0199474 Al (published Aug.
13, 2 009) [hereinafter Leininger].
6 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2009/0198090 Al (published Aug. 6,
2009) [hereinafter Mamedov].
7 Dong Ju Moon et al., Partial Oxidation (POX) Reforming of Gasoline for
Fuel-Cell Powered Vehicles Applications, 19 Korean J. Chem. Eng. 921
(2002) [hereinafter Moon].
3
Appeal2015-002979
Application 12/985,051
VII. Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of Berggren, Leininger,
Mamedov, and Moon. Final Action 16-22.
VIII. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Douglas in view of Berggren, Leininger, Mamedov, and
Wieland. Final Action 22-23.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Douglas teaches all the limitations of claim 1,
except that it "does not explicitly teach extracting the second reaction
product from the quench." Final Action 3; Answer 4. However, the
Examiner finds that
Berggren teaches extracting a portion of the product gas
from the partial oxidation reactor and reducing its
temperature by mixing it with a considerable lower
temperature (i.e., quenching the extracted product gas)
and obtaining a stream with a reduced methane content.
Berggren also teaches that the gas obtained can be used
as feedstock for other processes.
Final Action 3--4 (citations omitted). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate
Berggren's extraction of a cooled stream from the partial
oxidation reactor into Douglas' process and extract
Douglas' second reaction product from the quench
section of the gasifier. One of ordinary skill in the art, at
the time the invention was made, would have been
motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of
success in order to obtain a stream with a reduced
4
Appeal2015-002979
Application 12/985,051
methane concentration that could be used for other
processes as taught by Berggren.
Id. at 4.
The Examiner has established a reason why a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have extracted more than one gas stream from a gasification
reactor. See Final Action 3 (citing Douglas i-f 49, referring to the extraction
of two reaction products from zones 20 and 32 as indicated in Figures 1 and
2). The Examiner has also established a reason why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have cooled a product gas from a gasification reactor,
and reduced its methane content. See id. at 3--4 (citing Berggren Fig. 1, item
56, i-fi-121, 23). However, the Examiner has not provided any explicit
rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen the
quench section of a gasifier as a point from which to extract a product gas,
or that the product gas would thereby comprise a reduced methane content
as compared to the product gas from the reaction zone, as required by claim
1. The rejection is, accordingly, deficient. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("obviousness concerns whether a
skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to
make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention").
Because the Examiner has failed to show how all the limitations of
claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Douglas and Berggren, the
Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1. See In re Boe, 505 F.2d
1297, 1299 (CCPA 1974) ("[A]ll limitations must be considered and ... it is
error to ignore specific limitations distinguishing over the references."). The
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 10 follows the same logic as the
rejection of claim 1. See Final Action 14. Therefore, for the same reasons,
5
Appeal2015-002979
Application 12/985,051
the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 10. Because the Examiner's
findings with regard to dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 do not cure the
above deficiencies, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-
16.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6