Ex Parte Kaart

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12521881 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/521,881 07/01/2009 Sander Kaart
23632 7590 02/18/2016
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
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.
TS8681USAP 3536
EXAMINER
TEITELBAUM, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDER KAART
Appeal 2014-001443 1,2
Application 12/521,881
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-10 and 12-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the invention relates to "a method and
apparatus for liquefying a hydrocarbon feed stream, such as a natural gas
feed stream." See Spec. 1, 11. 1-3. Claim 1 is the only independent claim
1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed July 1,
2009) and Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed July 1, 2013), as well as the Examiner's
Answer ("Answer," mailed Aug. 15, 2013).
2 According to Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is Shell Oil
Company." Br. 2.
Appeal2014-001443
Application 12/521,881
under appeal, and we reproduce claim l below as representative of the
appealed claims.
1. A method of liquefying a hydrocarbon feed stream, the
method at least comprising the steps of:
heat exchanging a compressed hydrocarbon stream against one
or more refrigerant streams to fully condense the compressed
hydrocarbon stream and provide a liquefied hydrocarbon stream
and one or more warmed refrigerant streams;
compressing at least one of said one or more warmed refrigerant
stream( s) using one or more refrigerant compressors driven by
one or more gas turbines;
driving one or more compressor-driving steam turbines, at least
partly using steam provided by at least one of said one or more
gas turbines; and
providing said compressed hydrocarbon stream by compressing
a hydrocarbon feed stream using at least one or more feed
compressors driven by said one or more compressor-driving
steam turbines.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claims 1-3, 9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Martinez (US 6,691,531 Bl, iss. Feb. 17, 2004) and Reddy
(US 6,301,927 Bl, iss. Oct. 16, 2001)3; and
3 Although the heading on page 3 of the Answer indicates that the Examiner
rejects claim 8 based on Martinez and Reddy, it appears that claim 8 is
rejected based on an additional reference, as set forth below.
2
Appeal2014-001443
Application 12/521,881
claims 4, 7, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Martinez, Reddy, and Dubar (US 6,446,465 B 1, iss. Sept. 10, 2002)4 ;
claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Martinez, Reddy, Dubar, and Voort (US 6,389,844 Bl,
iss. May 21, 2002);
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martinez,
Reddy, and Wilkinson (US 7,010,937 B2, iss. Mar. 14, 2006); and
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martinez,
Reddy, Sterner (US 5,983,663, iss. Nov. 16, 1999), and Iijima
(US 2004/0035147 Al, pub. Feb. 26, 2004).
See Answer 3-11.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1, from which claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend,
recites the following:
1. A method of liquefying a hydrocarbon feed stream, the
method at least comprising the steps of:
heat exchanging a compressed hydrocarbon stream against one
or more refrigerant streams to fully condense the compressed
hydrocarbon stream and provide a liquefied hydrocarbon stream
and one or more warmed refrigerant streams;
compressing at least one of said one or more warmed refrigerant
stream( s) using one or more refrigerant compressors driven by
one or more gas turbines;
driving one or more compressor-driving steam turbines, at least
partly using steam provided by at least one of said one or more
gas turbines; and
4 We correct each of the rejections of claims 4--8, 10, and 13-20 to include a
reference to Reddy.
3
Appeal2014-001443
Application 12/521,881
providing said compressed hydrocarbon stream by compressing
a hydrocarbon feed stream using at least one or more feed
compressors driven by said one or more compressor-driving
steam turbines.
Br., Claims App. Thus, in the claimed method, the gas turbine that drives
the refrigerant compressor (i.e., the compressor that compresses the
refrigerant fluid heat-exchanged against the compressed hydrocarbon fluid)
provides steam to a steam turbine that drives the feed compressor that
compresses the hydrocarbon fluid. Based on our review of the Examiner's
findings and conclusions (see, e.g., Answer 3-29), and Appellants'
arguments (see, e.g., Br. 4--10), we conclude that the Examiner fails to
establish that it would have been obvious to combine the references to
provide the claimed method. Thus, we do not sustain any of the obviousness
rejections of claims 1-20.
The Examiner determines that Martinez discloses a feed compressor
202 that compresses the hydrocarbon fluid, and that Martinez discloses a gas
turbine that drives a refrigerant compressor. See Answer 4--5, 12. The
Examiner does not determine that feed compressor 202 is driven by steam
provided from any particular source, such as steam provided by Martinez's
gas turbine that drives the refrigerant compressor. See Answer 4--5, 12. In
fact, the Examiner finds that "Martinez is silent as to how the feed
compressor (202) is driven." (Final Action 3.)
Further, the Examiner does not determine that Reddy, the only other
reference used in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, teaches that steam
provided by a gas turbine that drives a refrigerant compressor can be used to
drive a compressor that compresses the hydrocarbon fluid. Rather, the
Examiner relies upon Reddy to "teach[] the use of a steam turbine ... to
4
Appeal2014-001443
Application 12/521,881
power a feed gas compressor ... as well as other compressors ... in [a
cryogenic] system [that liquefies a hydrocarbon gas]." Answer 4.
Nonetheless, the Examiner concludes that based on Reddy's teaching of
using a steam turbine (provided with steam from some source) to drive a
compressor that compresses a hydrocarbon fluid, it would have been obvious
to modify Martinez to use the steam provided by the gas turbine that drives
the refrigerant compressor) to drive the compressor that compresses the
hydrocarbon fluid, as such an arrangement would "inhibit an increase in the
capital costs that would be incurred if a brand new and separate power
source was used to power the feed compressor." Id. at 12.
As summarized above, it appears that the Examiner relies on Reddy to
teach what is well known-i.e., the use of a steam turbine to drive a
compressor. Neither reference shows the use of steam provided from the
particular claimed source-i.e., from the gas turbine that drives the
refrigerant compressor-to drive the compressor that compresses the
hydrocarbon fluid. It is true that a claim may be obvious even when a
reference does not provide an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine the references as the Examiner proposes. In this case, however, we
determine the Examiner's reasons for combining the references as the
Examiner proposes does not have the required rational underpinning to
support a legal conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify
Martinez to use steam provided by a gas turbine that drives a refrigerant
compressor to drive a compressor that compresses the hydrocarbon fluid,
based solely on Reddy's teaching that a steam turbine can be used to drive a
compressor. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
5
Appeal2014-001443
Application 12/521,881
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-10 and 12-20.
REVERSED
6