Ex Parte Lauritzen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2015

12542420 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 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.
12/542,420 08/17/2009 Ann Marie Lauritzen TH3522 (US) 5446
23632 7590 05/21/2015
SHELL OIL COMPANY
P O BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
EXAMINER
DANG, THUAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2015 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 ANN MARIE LAURITZEN, and
AJAY MADHAV MADGAVKAR
____________

Appeal 2013-005410
Application 12/542,4201
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Primary Examiner to reject Claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Beuther (US 4,179,474,
issued Dec. 18, 1979) and Martindale (US 4,806,700, issued Feb. 21, 1989).2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:

1 According to the Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Shell Oil
Company. (Br. 2).
2 The statement of rejection appears in the Final Office Action entered
April 6, 2012.
Appeal 2013-005410
Application 12/542,420

2
1. An integrated process for producing ethylene and
aromatic hydrocarbons which comprises:
(a) contacting a mixed lower alkane feed with an aromatic
hydrocarbon conversion catalyst to produce a product mixture
which is comprised of aromatic reaction products including
benzene, unreacted ethane and non-aromatic products,
(b) separating and recovering the benzene and any other
aromatic reaction products,
(c) separating and recovering the ethane, and
(d) introducing the ethane into an alkane cracker to produce
ethylene.

Upon consideration of the appeal record including the Appellants’
position in this appeal as set forth on pages 2–4 of the Appeal Brief, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons well-stated by the Examiner
(Examiner’s Answer entered December 4, 2012 at 3–4). We add the
following.
Appellants’ principal argument is there is no teaching or suggestion in
either Beuther or Martindale that would have made it obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to separate portions of Beuther’s non-preferred feed
products and passed them through a dehydrocyclodimerization reactor as
described in Martindale. (App. Br. 2–3).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive for the reasons provided by the
Examiner. (Ans. 4–5). It has not been disputed that Martindale discloses a
process of making benzene a desired product by conversion of C2–5 aliphatic
hydrocarbons in a dehydrocyclodimerization zone to produce a product
containing benzene and other aromatic compounds. Martindale discloses
light hydrocarbons are produced as a by-product of the
dehydrocyclodimerization reactions and unconverted propane are
concentrated into a second gas stream removed from the reaction zone.
Appeal 2013-005410
Application 12/542,420

3
(Col. 5, ll. 62–67). It also has not been disputed that Beuther discloses a
pyrolysis process for producing ethylene from a feed containing lower
alkanes (C2–5 paraffins). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected that Martindale’s by-products, aliphatic hydrocarbons,
would have been suitable for utilization in Beuther’s pyrolysis process. See
Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (“the suggestion to modify the art to produce the claimed
invention need not be expressly stated in one or all of the references used to
show obviousness. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)
(internal quote marks and citation omitted.)
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Beuther and Martindale because Martindale teaches the
unreacted hydrocarbons are recycled. (App. Br. 3).
Appellants’ argument lacks persuasive merit because Martindale
recognizes the lower alkanes are a by-product of the reaction. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Martindale’s lower
alkanes by-product were suitable as a starting material for the process of
Beuther.
It is well settled that a reference may be relied upon for all that it
would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art,
including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs.,
Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“all disclosures of the prior art,
including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered”) (quoting In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)).
Appeal 2013-005410
Application 12/542,420

4
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed
claims for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED

KRH