Ex Parte Kempes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2018

14241343 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2018)

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.
14/241,343 02/26/2014 Roderick Kempes TS4080-US-PCT 3850
23632 7590 02/12/2018
SHF! T OH miUPANY
EXAMINER
P 0 BOX 576 PETTITT, JOHN F
HOUSTON, TX 77001-0576
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2018 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
Shelldocketing@cpaglobal.com
shellusdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY MARTIN PARRY PERKINS1,
RODERICK KEMPES, ROBERT LANSINK, and
LEENDERT JOHANNES ARIE ZOETEMEIJER
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Roderick Kempes et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants the Real Party in Interest is Shell Oil Company.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
CLAIMS
Independent claims 1 and 10 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced
below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of heating a liquefied stream, comprising:
passing the liquefied stream that is to be heated through a
first heat transfer zone in the form of a shell that contains a heat
transfer fluid, in indirect heat exchanging contact with the heat
transfer fluid across a first heat transfer surface arranged inside
the first heat transfer zone, whereby heat transfers from the heat
transfer fluid to the liquefied stream, thereby condensing at
least part of the heat transfer fluid to form a condensed portion;
allowing accumulation of a part of the condensed portion
within the first heat transfer zone thereby forming a liquid layer
of the heat transfer fluid within the first heat transfer zone,
wherein above the liquid layer of the heat transfer fluid within
the first heat transfer zone is a vapor zone, whereby the first
heat transfer surface is arranged within the vapor zone in the
first heat transfer zone;
cycling the heat transfer fluid in a closed circuit from the
first heat transfer zone via at least a downcomer to a second
heat transfer zone and back to the first heat transfer zone, the
second heat transfer zone being arranged in an ambient;
wherein said cycling of the heat transfer fluid comprises
drawing liquid from the liquid layer in the first heat transfer
zone and passing said liquid from the liquid layer through the
downcomer to the second heat transfer zone, and passing the
heat transfer fluid through the second heat transfer zone to the
first heat transfer zone, whereby in the second heat transfer
zone indirectly heat exchanging with the ambient thereby
passing heat from the ambient to the heat transfer fluid and
vaporizing the heat transfer fluid, wherein the second heat
transfer zone discharges into the vapor zone in the first heat
transfer zone at a location that is gravitationally above the
liquid layer, and
wherein the heat transfer fluid from the second heat
transfer zone passes through open ends of one or more riser end
pieces as the heat transfer fluid is being discharged from the
2
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
second heat transfer zone into the first heat transfer zone, the
one or more riser end pieces traverse through the liquid layer
into the vapor zone whereby the open ends of the riser end
pieces are located gravitationally lower than all of the first heat
exchange surface.
REJECTIONS23
I. Claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Minton (US 2006/0242969 Al, pub. Nov. 2,
2006) and Ayub (US (US 2012/0118545 Al, pub. May 17, 2012).
Final Act. 3.
II. Claims 1—6, 8, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Minton and Li (CN 2383027 Y, pub. June. 14,
2000). Final Act. 6.
III. Claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Li, and Ayub. Final Act. 9.
IV. Claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Li, and Link (US 4,798,614; Jan. 17,
1989). Final Act. 10.
V. Claims 1—12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Minton, Ayub, and one of Hollcroft (US 2,580,547;
2 The indefmiteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn.
See Advisory Action of November 22, 2016, p. 1.
3 Regarding Rejections II—VIII, the Examiner’s statement of the rejection
lists many claims that are not specifically addressed. It appears that
Rejections III and IV are directed only to claims 9 and 15 (Final Act. 9—10),
Rejection V is directed only to claims 7 and 14 (id. at 11—12), and
Rejections VI—VII are directed only to claim 13 (id. at 12—13). We will
review the rejections accordingly.
3
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
Jan. 1, 1952), Schmid (US 2,837,212; June 3, 1958), Blendermann (US
3,469,698; Sept. 30, 1969), and Stell (US 2005/0261530 Al; Nov. 24,
2005). Final Act. 11.
VI. Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Ayub, and one of Cur (US
2008/0156034 Al; July 3, 2008), Stine (US 4,194,536; Mar. 25, 1980), and
Yang (US 2013/0025832 Al; Jan. 31, 2013). Final Act. 11.
VII. Claims 1—6, 8, and 10—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Li, and one of Cur, Stine, and Yang.
Final Act. 12.
VIII. Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Li, Link, and one of Cur, Stine, and
Yang. Final Act. 12.
OPINION
Rejections I, V, and VI — Minton and Ayub
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Minton discloses heating a
liquefied stream 14 by passing the liquefied stream through a heat transfer
fluid (refrigerant) in a first heat transfer zone of a shell 12, to condense at
least part of the heat transfer fluid to create a liquid intermediate refrigerant
that accumulates within the first heat transfer zone. Final Act. 3. A vapor
zone 28 is above the accumulated liquid, and a portion of a heat transfer
surface 18 is within the vapor zone 28. Id. The refrigerant is cycled in a
closed circuit between the first heat transfer zone and a second heat transfer
zone at 40 via a downcomer 36, 45 (for liquid) and a vapor inlet 38. Id. The
Examiner finds that Minton’s second heat transfer zone at 40 indirectly
4
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
exchanges heat with the ambient, to vaporize the refrigerant. Id. at 4 (citing
Minton 113); see Minton ]f]f 13, 14, 16. The Examiner then finds that
Minton discloses that the vaporized refrigerant discharges into the vapor
zone 28 of the first heat transfer zone via a riser 30 located gravitationally
above the liquid layer 32. Id.
The Examiner finds that Minton does not disclose the open end of its
riser 30 being gravitationally lower than all of its first heat exchange surface
18. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that Ayub discloses first heat
exchange surfaces (horizontally-arranged tubes 15U, 15L) that reside above
a first heat exchange fluid inlet (refrigerant distribution assembly 33). Id. at
4—5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Minton to be horizontally arranged and provided with the lower inlet of
Ayub to provide “improved performance from thin film operation and
uniform distribution of the inlet fluid under a process fluid tube bundle.” Id.
at 5 (citing Ayub 138).
Appellants argue that Minton and Ayub cannot be reasonably
combined, because Ayub’s refrigerant inlet is located at a bottom of its shell
(and the refrigerant outlet is located at a top of its shell) to “naturally align[]
with the phase change and flow direction of the refrigerant that becomes
vaporized as it performs work (the refrigerant enters as liquid/vapor and is
intended to leave as only vapor)” and “Minton would not similarly benefit
from this natural alignment because it performs the opposite process because
it is a condenser (vapor phase enters and liquid phase leaves).” Appeal Br.
6. Appellants contend that one skilled in the art would, therefore, not have a
reasonable expectation of success from the proposed modification of Minton
to have Ayub’s horizontal arrangement. Id.
5
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
We agree with Appellants. Minton’s first heat transfer zone
introduces heat transfer fluid in vapor phase above its heat transfer surfaces,
and the heat transfer fluid naturally falls across the heat transfer surfaces as
it cools to collect at a bottom of the shell. If Ayub’s horizontally-arranged
first heat transfer zone (or simply its heat transfer fluid assembly) were
substituted for that of Minton, the heat transfer fluid in the resulting first
heat transfer zone would be delivered under the heat transfer surfaces and
would not derive the benefit of naturally falling across the heat transfer
surfaces as it cools to collect at a bottom of the shell. The Examiner does
not explain how the first heat transfer zone of Ayub with its inlet 41 and
outlet 49 locations, in which liquid/vapor phase heat transfer fluid is
introduced below the tubes and heated to vapor phase before removal
therefrom via suction above the tubes, could adequately function to add heat
to heat transfer fluid and collect liquid phase heat that would necessarily
collect along a bottom of the first heat transfer zone. We therefore are not
persuaded that one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable
expectation of success from the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Minton and Ayub. For this reason, we do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejections V and VI rely on the same proposed combination of
Minton and Ayub, and reasoning therefore. We do not sustain Rejections V
and VI for the reason set forth above.
Rejection II—Minton and Li— Claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15
Regarding the combination of Minton and Li, the Examiner makes the
same findings that Minton discloses the claimed invention except for the
open end of the riser 30 being gravitationally lower than all of the first heat
exchange surface 18. Final Act. 6—8. The Examiner then finds that Li
6
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
discloses horizontally arranged tubes 2 above a heat exchange fluid riser
inlet 6 that distributes “rising heat exchange fluid to contact the horizontal
tubes (2).” Id. at 8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to “modify Minton to be horizontally arranged and provided with
the outlet below the horizontal tubes for the purpose of providing improved
distribution of rising fluid to the horizontal tubes.” Id.
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10-12, and 15 as a group. See
Appeal Br. 10-11. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8,
10-12, and 15 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellants argue that Li is non-analogous art “as Minton primarily
deals with vaporizing cryogenic liquids, where Li seems to deal with hot
water boilers.” Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellants, Minton and Li
“provide a different technical function” such that one skilled in the art would
not have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Minton with Li.
Id. In arguing that Minton and Li are non-analogous art, Appellants define
neither the field of the invention nor the problem faced by the inventor,
further, Appellants do not explain how Minton and Li differ from the
inventor’s field and problem. Appellants’ argument is thus conclusory.
Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
faced by the inventor. Ans. 20—21. In re Bigio, 381 L.3d 1320, 1325—1326
(Led. Cir. 2004); In re Wood, 599 L.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). The
Examiner responds that Minton and Li are in the same field of endeavor —
“shell and tube heat exchangers,” and Li is “pertinent to the problem of the
inventor which is providing fluid between two zones with downcomers and
7
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
risers.” Ans. 20—21. We find no error in the Examiner’s determination that
Minton and Li are analogous art.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Minton
discloses its line 47 being “ambient.” Appeal Br. 10. We are not persuaded
by this argument. Minton explicitly discloses that “any other suitable liquid
or vapor which is warm relative to the cryogenic liquid and at a temperature
sufficient to vaporize the intermediate refrigerant can be used as a heat
exchange fluid in the second heat exchanger,” including “air . . . and the
like.” Minton 116. Appellants provide us with no definition of the term
“ambient” that excludes Minton’s disclosure of air.
Appellants provide similarly unpersuasive conclusory statements
regarding claims 3, 6, and 9 under separate headings. Appeal Br. 10-11; see
In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, for the reasons set
forth above, we sustain Rejection II.
Rejection III—Minton, Li, andAyub — Claims 9 and 15
Dependent claim 9 recites “shielding the riser end pieces from
condensed heat exchange fluid falling down from the first heat exchange
surface.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Dependent claim 15 recites “one or
more liquid diversion means arranged between the first heat exchange
surface and the open end of the at least one riser end piece.” Id. at 18
(Claims App.). The Examiner finds this disclosure in Ayub. Final Act. 10
(“Ayub teaches it is well known to provide a shielding member between a
spray header and tubes in a shell and tube heat exchanger.”). Appellants
again argue that “Ayub discloses an opposite arrangement in which there is
no need for such shielding, does not show riser ends facing upwardly and
only shows a perforated plate which has a different function,” such that
8
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
“[n]o reasonable artisan would take a piece of hardware that has a particular
function in reference to Ayub and put it in the design of Minton to perform a
completely different function.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive, because it does not address the Examiner’s proposed
combination, in which Minton is modified by both Li and Ayub. We
therefore sustain Rejection III.
Rejection IV—Minton, Li, and Link— Claims 9 and 15
The Examiner finds that Link discloses the subject matter of
dependent claims 9 and 15. Final Act. 10 (“Link teaches it is well known to
provide a shielding member (10) above riser tubes in a shell and tube heat
exchanger for the purpose of providing separation of liquid and gas (column
6, line 49).”). Appellants argue that Link does not disclose shielding the
riser end pieces from condensed heat exchange fluid falling down from the
first heat exchange surface, because Link’s hood 10 separates a liquid phase
from a gaseous phase in the upper container 2, which does not teach the
claimed method step of shielding the riser end pieces from condensed heat
exchange fluid falling down from the first heat exchange surface. Appeal
Br. 12. Appellants state that “[sjimilar arguments apply mutatis mutandis to
claim 15.” Id. Appellants’argument is not persuasive. Regardless of any
stated purpose of Link’s hood 10, Appellant’s have not explained why it is
not capable of also shielding the riser end pieces from falling fluid, as it
resides over the rise ends in the vapor phase area. We therefore sustain
Rejection IV.
Rejections VII and VIII—Minton, Li, and Cur, Stine, or Yang
Claim 13 depends from claim 10 and recites the downcomer being
“thermally insulated from the ambient.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The
9
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
Examiner finds that insulated conduits are disclosed in each of Cur, Stine,
and Yang. Final Act. 11,12 (“it is well known to provide insulation to heat
exchange lines as taught explicitly by Cur (insulated lines 42 transport heat
exchange fluid; para. 49) Stine (insulated conduits for transferring heat
exchange fluid column 1), Yang (see lines 104 are insulated with 109, para.
114)”). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to insulate
Minton’s downcomer to “ensur[e] that heat is transferred in the locations and
amounts desired.” Id.
Appellants argue that none of Cur, Stine, or Yang disclose insulating a
downcomer. Appeal Br. 13. Appellants further argue that one skilled in the
art would not be motivated to add thermal insulation to Minton’s
downcomer, because it carries fluid that needs to exchange heat (and such
exchange would be prohibited by such insulation). Id.
The Examiner does not rely on Cur, Stine, or Yang to explicitly
disclose insulating a downcomer, though the Examiner does find that “Yang
explicitly teaches a downcomer, per se, with insulation (109) thereon.” Ans.
22. Rather, Cur, Stine, and Yang are relied on only for insulating conduits
in a heat exchange system generally. Final Act. 12, 13. The Examiner
responds that downcomers are transfer lines from one heat exchange zone to
another heat exchange zone, and Cur, Stine, and Yang “show that it is
widely known to provide insulation on transfer lines from one heat exchange
zone to another.” Ans. 22.
The Examiner has the better argument. Appellants’ reasoning that
one skilled in the art would not insulate a downcomer appears to contradict
Appellants’ own preference to thermally insulate their own downcomer. See
Spec. 9:12—16, 23—31 (“The amount of insulation is recommended to be
10
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
sufficient to . . . [prevent] any vaporization of the heat transfer fluid inside
the downcomer.”). We therefore sustain Rejections VI and VII.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minton and Ayub.
We SUSTAIN the rejection of claims 1—6, 8, and 10-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minton and Li.
We SUSTAIN the rejection of claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Li, and Ayub.
We SUSTAIN the rejection of claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Li, and Link.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—12, 14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Ayub, and one of Hollcroft,
Schmid, Blendermann, and Stell.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Ayub, and one of Cur, Stine, or
Yang.
We SUSTAIN the rejection of claims 1—6, 8, and 10-13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Li, and one of Cur, Stine, or
Yang.
We SUSTAIN the rejection of claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minton, Li, Link, and one of Cur, Stine,
or Yang.
11
Appeal 2018-000123
Application 14/241,343
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12