Ex Parte Mock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2017

11739488 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2017)

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.
11/739,488 04/24/2007 Jon M. Mock 34283US 9403
28841 7590 07/05/2017
PnnnonPhillins; Pnmnanv
EXAMINER
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079-1175
RUSSELL, DEVON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2017 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):
Legal-IP@conocophillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JON M. MOCK, MEGAN V. EVANS, ELICIA FAJARDO,
JAMES D. ORTEGO, LISA M. STRASSLE, and
WELDON L. RANSBARGER
Appeal 2016-001584
Application 11/739,488
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jon M. Mock et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1—6, 8, 9,
12—15, 49, and 50 as unpatentable over Qualls (US 2004/0083888 Al, pub.
May 6, 2004) and Howard (US 2006/0090508 Al, pub. May 4, 2006).
Claims 7, 10, 11, and 16-48 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-001584
Application 11/739,488
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “liquefying natural gas.” Spec.
1:5, Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A process for liquefying natural gas comprising:
(a) providing an LNG facility that comprises:
i. a plurality of mechanical refrigeration cycles wherein at
least one of the mechanical refrigeration cycles comprises an
open-loop refrigeration cycle;
ii. a heavies removal unit upstream of the open-loop
refrigeration cycle;
iii. wherein the open-loop refrigeration cycle comprises a
cooler, a plurality of expansion stages downstream of the cooler
wherein each expansion stage produces a predominantly vapor
refrigerant stream and a predominantly liquid product stream, a
refrigeration compressor downstream of one or more of the
predominantly vapor refrigerant streams, and a refrigeration
chiller downstream of the refrigeration compressor;
iv. wherein the plurality of predominantly vapor
refrigerant streams comprises a first predominantly vapor
refrigerant stream and one or more subsequent predominantly
vapor refrigerant streams;
(b) cooling a predominantly methane stream in the plurality of
mechanical refrigeration cycles;
(c) introducing the predominantly methane stream to the heavies
removal unit to remove a portion of the heavies from the
predominantly methane stream;
(d) after step (c) and downstream of the heavies removal unit,
introducing the predominantly methane stream to the open-loop
refrigeration cycle;
(e) introducing the predominantly methane stream to the
plurality of expansion stages to form the plurality of
predominantly vapor refrigerant streams and the plurality of
liquid product streams;
2
Appeal 2016-001584
Application 11/739,488
(f) introducing the first of the predominantly vapor refrigerant
streams and at least one of the plurality of predominantly vapor
refrigerant streams to the refrigeration compressor to be
used as a refrigerant in the open refrigeration cycle;
(g) compressing the refrigerant in the refrigeration compressor to
form a compressed refrigerant and cooling the compressed
refrigerant in the refrigeration chiller to form a chilled
compressed refrigerant;
(h) cooling the predominantly methane stream in the cooler of
the open refrigeration cycle at least in part with the chilled
compressed refrigerant;
(i) withdrawing a fuel gas stream from the open refrigeration
cycle downstream of the refrigeration compressor, the fuel gas
stream comprising a combination of the plurality of
predominantly vapor refrigerant streams output from all of the
plurality of expansion stages;
(j) withdrawing a domestic gas fraction from the open
refrigeration cycle upstream of a discharge of the refrigeration
compressor wherein the domestic gas fraction is withdrawn from
the one or more subsequent predominantly vapor refrigerant
streams; and
(k) withdrawing at least a portion of the predominantly liquid
product streams as a liquefied natural gas product.
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2—6,
8, 9, 12—15, 49, and 50 separate from those presented for independent claim
1. Br. 7. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2—6, 8, 9,
12—15, 49, and 50 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In the Answer, the Examiner states that
it is old, well-known, and well within the ordinary skill to take­
off a portion of a process gas stream from where the composition
of that gas stream makes it useful for another purpose (such as
heating, cooking, power generation, etc.). This is the equivalent
of the [Appellants’] features recited in claim 1 at steps (i) and (j).
3
Appeal 2016-001584
Application 11/739,488
Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 2-4. To support this assertion, the Examiner
relies on “the teachings of Howard.” Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 4. In
particular, the Examiner finds that
Howard takes a natural gas input stream (1), cools it (110),
separates out the heavies (115), takes the methane rich gas (53)
and cools (120, 205) then flashes (212) it to produce LNG (15)
and a flash gas (30) which is used elsewhere in the process. From
this final flashed gas (30) of Howard a stream (36) is removed
for use elsewhere outside of the system.
Ans. 2 (citing Howard 124); see also Final Act. 6. The Examiner further
finds that
Qualls follows the same process: takes a natural gas input stream
(116), cools it (2, 22, 28, 42, 54), separates out the heavies (60),
takes the methane rich gas (136) and cools (68, 74) then flashes
(80, 92, 94) it to produce LNG (164) and a flash gas (150, 162,
170, 172, 17 4) which is used elsewhere in the process.
Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner concludes that
if Howard has found it useful to withdraw a portion of the
methane rich gas stream resulting from flashing his final stream
into LNG, one of ordinary skill would look at the streams (150,
162, 170, 172, 174) of Qualls which have resulted from exactly
the same process and recognize that they too can be withdrawn
for uses outside the system.
Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 4, 6—7.
Appellants contend that “Howard does not discuss withdrawing both
from downstream of compressor 230 in addition to upstream of the
compressor 230 discharge.” Br. 6.
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner “maintains that the
composition of the gas stream is the source of its value. The pressure and
4
Appeal 2016-001584
Application 11/739,488
temperature changes of withdrawing a stream that has or has not been
compressed does not change the inherent value of the stream.” Ans. 3.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that “stream 36 of Howard can be
characterize[d] as being upstream of a compressor (230) or downstream of a
compressor (220) and notes that Appellants have not given “any explanation
of why” only “one of those compressors” has been considered. Id. at 4. The
Examiner’s findings are sound and supported by the record. Appellants do
not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellants contend that “Howard does not provide sufficient
motivation to modify Qualls.” Br. 7. In particular, Appellants contend that
the stream 38 that is withdrawn in Howard is a combination of
two streams (36, 37) that are processed differently than any of
the predominantly vapor refrigerant streams used to derive the
domestic gas fraction or fuel gas streams according to the
claimed invention. Consequently, the withdrawn stream 38 in
Howard does not and is not asserted to teach either the claimed
domestic gas fraction or fuel gas.
Id. at 6.
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner correctly points
out that “Howard asserts that it is only ‘preferable’ to combine the streams
36 and 37, [thus] such [a] combination is not required.” Ans. 5 (citing
Howard 124). See Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892
F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“One skilled in the art is able to read a
reference for all that it teaches and not limit a reference to its preferred
embodiment”); see also In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418,424 (CCPA 1966)
(“A reference can be used for all it realistically teaches, and is not limited to
the disclosures in its specific illustrative examples.”). The Examiner further
correctly points out that “[njothing in the claim language precludes the
5
Appeal 2016-001584
Application 11/739,488
combination of the ‘domestic gas fraction’ or the ‘fuel gas stream’ from
combination with other streams and fractions at a later point. The claim
language only specifies where the stream and fraction are withdrawn from
originally.” Ans. 4; see also Br. 8—9, Claims App. Additionally, the
Examiner finds that
the teachings of Howard to with draw [sic] portion 36 from
stream 35 is analogous to the withdrawal of each of the steps (i)
and (J), [of the subject invention], because it is the withdrawal of
highly purified methane flash gas being used as a coolant for
purposes outside of the system, just as in [Appellants’] claims.
The fact that Howard contemplates the combination of 36 with
other streams does not have any bearing on the applicability to
[Appellants’] claims as written.
Ans. 4. The Examiner’s findings are sound and supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, and the Examiner’s conclusion therefrom is
based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner
error.
Appellants contend that the Examiner engages in impermissible
hindsight in combining the references. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner cites specific teachings in the
references themselves, not Appellants’ disclosure, in support of the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining the references as proposed
in the rejection. See Final Act. 2-4, 6—7; see also Ans. 2—3.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
Qualls and Howard. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over Qualls and Howard. We further sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—6, 8, 9, 12—15, 49, and 50, which fall with
6
Appeal 2016-001584
Application 11/739,488
claim 1.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—6, 8, 9,
12—15, 49, and 50 as unpatentable over Qualls and Howard.
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).
AFFIRMED
7