Ex Parte Lau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 6, 2015

12343149 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015)

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.
12/343,149 12/23/2008 Francis S. Lau FN-0017 US NP1 3944
77003 7590 01/06/2015
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
WOODARD, JOYE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1773
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2015 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 FRANCIS S. LAU1
and Earl T. Robinson
________________

Appeal 2013-001961
Application 12/343,149
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before MARK NAGUMO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Francis S. Lau and Earl T. Robinson (“Lau”) timely appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection2 of claims 10–20, which are all of
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is listed as GreatPoint Energy, Inc. (Appeal
Brief, filed 14 August 2012 (“Br.”), 1.)
2 Office Action mailed 27 January 2012 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
Appeal 2013-001961
Application 12/343,149

2
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to processes of catalytic
gasification of carbonaceous materials.
Claim 10 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads:
A process for converting a carbonaceous material into
a first plurality of gases comprising
methane and
one or more of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and other higher
hydrocarbons,
the process comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a gasifier apparatus comprising:
(1) a fluidized bed gasifier configured to receive
a catalyzed carbonaceous feedstock and
a second plurality of gases comprising
steam, hydrogen and carbon monoxide, and
to exhaust the first plurality of gases; and
(2) a slurry gasifier configured to supply to the
fluidized bed gasifier the second plurality of gases,
wherein the slurry gasifier comprises:
a gasifier chamber;
an optional syngas conduit in communication with a
syngas source and the gasifier chamber for optionally
supplying a syngas to the gasifier chamber;
an oxygen gas conduit for supplying enriched
oxygen gas as a reactant to the gasifier chamber;

3 Application 12/343,149, Steam generating slurry gasifier for the catalytic
gasification of a carbonaceous feedstock, filed 23 December 2008, claiming
the benefit of a provisional application filed 28 December 2007. We cite the
Specification as “Spec.”
Appeal 2013-001961
Application 12/343,149

3
a slurry conduit for supplying an aqueous carbonaceous
slurry as a reactant to the gasifier chamber; and
a heated gas conduit for exhausting the second
plurality of gases;
wherein the heated gas conduit of the slurry gasifier
is in communication with the fluidized bed gasifier
for supplying the second plurality of gases from the
slurry gasifier to the fluidized bed gasifier;
(b) supplying a particulate composition comprising the
carbonaceous material and a gasification catalyst to the
fluidized bed gasifier, wherein the gasification catalyst, in
the presence of steam and under suitable temperature and
pressure, exhibits gasification activity whereby
the first plurality of gases is formed;
(c) supplying an aqueous carbonaceous slurry via the slurry
conduit, an enriched oxygen gas via the oxygen gas
conduit, and optionally a syngas via the syngas conduit,
to the slurry gasifier;
(d) reacting the aqueous carbonaceous slurry in the slurry
gasifier in the presence of oxygen and under suitable
temperature and pressure so as to generate
the second plurality of gases;
(e) introducing the second plurality of gases into the
fluidized bed gasifier via the heated gas conduit;
(f) reacting the particulate composition in the fluidized bed
gasifier in the presence of the second plurality of gases and
under suitable temperature and pressure to form
the first plurality of gases; and
(g) at least partially separating the first plurality of gases to
produce a stream comprising a predominant amount of one
of the gases in the first plurality of gases, wherein:
(i) the gasification catalyst comprises a source of at
least one alkali metal and is present in an amount
sufficient to provide, in the particulate composition, a
ratio of alkali metal atoms to carbon atoms ranging
from about 0.01 to about 0.08; and
Appeal 2013-001961
Application 12/343,149

4
(ii) the aqueous carbonaceous slurry comprises a
mixture of carbonaceous material and water at a
weight ratio ranging from about 5:95 to about 40:60.
(Claims App., Br. 9–10; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis
added.)
The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection:4
Claims 10–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Matthews5 and Lang.6
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Initially, we find that Lau does not raise arguments for the
patentability of any claim separately from sole independent claim 10. All
claims therefore stand or fall with claim 10.
Lau urges that “the Examiner has misread Matthews” and that
Matthews “does not relate to hydromethanation and neither discloses nor
suggests producing the first plurality of gases (methane-enriched) directly
from a carbonaceous feedstock as is the basis of the presently claimed
invention.” (Br. 6, ll. 3–5; 7, ll. 5–7.) Additionally, Lau argues that “the
mere addition of a catalyst to the Matthews steam gasification reaction
[which the Examiner finds would have been suggested by Lang] may
accelerate that reaction, but it will not convert the steam gasification reaction

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed 14 August 2012 (“Ans.”).
5 Charles W. Matthews, Fluid bed coal gasification, U.S. Patent
No. 3,971,639 (1976).
6 Robert J. Lang and Joanne K. Pabst, Process for the catalytic gasification
of coal, U.S. Patent No. 4,336,034 (1982).
Appeal 2013-001961
Application 12/343,149

5
to the overall hydromethanation reaction in the context of the present
claimed [sic: claims].” (Id. at paragraph bridging 7–8.) Lau does not
otherwise contest the Examiner’s findings of fact regarding Matthews and
Lang.7
Although claim 10 only covers processes in which methane is
produced in the “first plurality of gases,” claim 10 does not require that
methane be the major product, or that more methane be produced than some
other gas product. Lau does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that
Matthews describes the production of methane as among the principal
chemical reactions that occur within the gasifier fluidized bed 38 of
gasifier 34. And although, as the Examiner found (FR 4, ll. 10-15),
Matthews seeks to suppress methane production (the principal desired
products being carbon monoxide and hydrogen, i.e., “syngas”) (Matthews,
col. 4, ll. 65–68), Lang also recognizes that the principal gases produced will
be hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, and the “some methane
will normally be formed depending on the gasification conditions” (Lang,
col. 6, ll. 26-31). Thus, both Matthews and Lau describe processes that,
under some conditions, will produce methane from carbonaceous starting
materials in a fluidized bed reactor.
We conclude that Lau’s argument is not persuasive of harmful error in
the appealed rejection. Because Lau does not raise any distinct additional
arguments for patentability, we affirm the rejection of record.

7 Lau did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2013-001961
Application 12/343,149

6
C. Order
We affirm the rejection of claims 10–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

lp