Ex Parte Paulus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2018

13510055 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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.
13/510,055 05/16/2012 Peter Marie Paulus TS8756 US 1008
23632 7590 01/10/2018
SHF! T OH miUPANY
EXAMINER
P 0 BOX 576 ALOSH, TAREQ M
HOUSTON, TX 77001-0576
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2018 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 PETER MARIE PAULUS and KORNELIS JAN VINK
Appeal 2017-0097781
Application 13/510,0552
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5, 8, and 10. We have jurisdiction
under § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 16,
2012) and Appeal Brief (“Br.,” Aug. 25, 2016), as well as the Examiner’s
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Feb. 26, 2016) and Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 19, 2017).
2 Appellants identify Shell Oil Company as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-009778
Application 13/510,055
SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL
The invention is directed to “a method of handling a boil off gas
stream from a cryogenically stored liquefied hydrocarbon inventory, and an
apparatus therefor.” Spec. 1:1—3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole
independent claim on appeal and is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of handling a boil off gas stream from a
cryogenically stored liquefied hydrocarbon inventory,
comprising at least the steps of:
- providing a boil off gas (BOG) stream from a liquefied
hydrocarbon storage tank;
- splitting the BOG stream into a BOG heat exchanger feed
stream and a BOG bypass stream;
- heat exchanging the BOG heat exchanger feed stream in a BOG
heat exchanger against a process stream, thereby providing a
warmed BOG stream and a cooled process stream;
- combining the warmed BOG stream with the BOG bypass
stream to provide a temperature controlled BOG stream;
wherein, the mass flow of the process stream is controlled in
response to a measured first temperature of at least one of (i) the
warmed BOG stream and (ii) the cooled process stream to move
the measured first temperature towards a first set point
temperature, and
the mass flow of one or both of the BOG heat exchanger feed
stream and the BOG bypass stream are controlled in response to
a measured second temperature of the temperature controlled
BOG stream, to move the measured second temperature towards
a second set point temperature,
wherein the temperature controlled BOG stream is further
processed by compressing the temperature controlled BOG
stream in a BOG compressor having a design temperature to
provide a compressed BOG stream and wherein the second set
2
Appeal 2017-009778
Application 13/510,055
point temperature is the design temperature of the BOG
compressor.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Devers US 5,669,238 Sept. 23, 1997
Fanning et al. (“Fanning”) US 2003/0154739 A1 Aug. 21, 2003
Kaart US 2011/0277498 Al Nov. 17, 2011
Walter Driedger, CONTROLLING SHELL AND TUBE EXCHANGERS,
Hydrocarbon Processing, Mar. 1998 (“NPL1”).
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Fanning, Kaart, NPL1, and Devers.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1—5, 8, and 10 as a group.
Br. 3—9. We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining
claims of the group stand or fall with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue that Kaart is non-analogous art to the claimed
invention. Br. 4. According to Appellants, Kaart is not about a boil off gas
stream, and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider
Kaart for combination with Fanning to modify the handling of the boil off
gas stream. Id. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of error.
3
Appeal 2017-009778
Application 13/510,055
To determine whether a reference is analogous prior art, we consider:
(1) whether the reference is from the same field of as the inventor’s
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “A reference
is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that
of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which
it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Here, without addressing whether Kaart is from the same field as the
inventors’ endeavor, we determine that Kaart is analogous art because it is
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventors are involved.
Appellants’ Specification explains that the combined warmed boil off
gas stream and warmed end flash gas stream may vary in temperature
depending on the mode in which the liquefaction plant is operated.
Spec. 2:19-22. The change in temperature changes the density of the fluid,
which changes the mass flow. Id. at 3:9—14. Decreases in mass flow may
result in a reduction in the specific power or efficiency of the common fuel
gas compressor receiving the fluid. Id. at 3:14—17. Consequently, as the
Examiner finds, the present invention addresses the problem of controlling
the temperature of the fluid entering the compressor to maintain the
efficiency of the compressor. Ans. 3^4 (citing Spec. 8:1—11).3
3 Instead of the Specification, the Examiner refers to paragraph 33 of the
application publication (US 2012/0240600 Al, pub. Sept. 27, 2012).
4
Appeal 2017-009778
Application 13/510,055
With regard to Kaart, Kaart teaches that “[bjecause the intake of a
refrigerant compressor is cold compared to the temperature of the recycled
or recirculated vapour, problems occur in the use of the normal method to
operate the refrigerant compressor in recycle mode.” Kaart 110. Thus, as
the Examiner finds, Kaart teaches controlling the temperature of a fluid
entering a compressor to maintain the operation of the compressor. Ans. 4
(citing Kaart 121). Although Kaart’s fluid is a refrigerant, Kaart’s teachings
would have logically commended themselves to the inventors’ attention in
considering the problem of controlling the temperature of a warmed boil off
gas stream and warmed end flash gas stream entering a compressor to
maintain the efficiency of the compressor. As such, Kaart is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which the inventors are involved, and therefore
analogous art to the claimed invention.
Appellants also argue that Kaart’s bypass stream has a different
function than that of the bypass stream of the present invention. Br. 5.
According to Appellants, the function of Kaart’s vapor recirculation stream,
i.e., bypass stream, is not to control the inlet/suction side temperature of a
compressor, but rather to prevent surge. Id. As such, Appellants contend
that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight reasoning to arrive at the
claimed invention. Id. Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of
Examiner error.
At the outset, the portion of Kaart cited by Appellants teaches
adjusting the temperature of the vapor recirculation line to adjust the
5
Appeal 2017-009778
Application 13/510,055
temperature of the suction side gaseous stream. Kaart | 59; Br. 5.4
Moreover, Kaart teaches that surge is caused by temperature fluctuations in
the fluid entering the compressor. Kaart || 6—15. Namely, a change in
temperature at the inlet side of the compressor affects the compressor flow
and pressure ratio across the compressor {id. H 11—12, Fig. 4), and these
changes in flow and pressure can result in surge {id. 1 6). Consequently, the
purpose of Kaart’s bypass stream can be described as preventing surge or
controlling the inlet/suction side temperature of a compressor because they
are one in the same. We, therefore, do not see a difference in the function of
Kaart’s bypass stream and that of the bypass stream of the present invention,
and the Examiner’s reason for combining the teachings of Fanning and Kaart
is based on this functionality of Kaart’s bypass stream (Final Act. 4), not
hindsight.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner has not made a prima
facie case of obviousness because there is no indication that the Examiner
considered the limitation reciting “splitting the BOG stream into a BOG heat
exchanger feed stream and a BOG bypass stream.” Br. 6. We disagree.
The Examiner finds that although Fanning discloses a BOG stream
from a liquefied hydrocarbon storage tank and heat exchanging the BOG
stream, Fanning does not teach splitting the BOG stream into a BOG heat
exchanger feed stream and a BOG bypass stream. Final Act. 3; Fanning,
Fig. 2. The Examiner further finds that both Kaart and NPL1 teach a bypass
stream around a heat exchanger, and that Kaart teaches the bypass stream is
4 Appellants refer to page 13, lines 7—13 of the publication of the
corresponding international application for Kaart (WO 2009/050175 Al,
pub. Apr. 23, 2009).
6
Appeal 2017-009778
Application 13/510,055
delivered to the inlet of a compressor. Id. at 3—\\ Kaart, Fig. 1; NPL1,
Fig. 3-2. The Examiner then explains why it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Fanning to split
the BOG stream into a BOG heat exchanger feed stream and a BOG bypass
stream, as taught by Kaart and NPL1. Final Act. 4. As such, the Examiner
has sufficiently shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined teachings of Fanning, Kaart, and NPL1 to result in the limitation
reciting “splitting the BOG stream into a BOG heat exchanger feed stream
and a BOG bypass stream.”
Appellants additionally assert that Fanning and Devers are
non-analogous art, and, therefore, the Examiner’s rejection relies on
impermissible hindsight. Br. 6—7. According to Appellants, Fanning
primarily deals with liquefaction, whereas Devers concerns a cryogenic
separation column. Id. at 6. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of error.
Appellants’ argument raises two issues: first, whether Devers is
non-analogous art to the claimed invention, and second, whether the
Examiner has provided a reason supported by rational underpinnings as to
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings
of Fanning and Devers. We address each of these issues in turn.
Beginning with the issue of whether Devers is non-analogous art to
the claimed invention, we reiterate that a prior art reference not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor can be analogous art if the reference is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. We agree with the Examiner that Devers
is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventors are involved.
Ans. 7—8.
7
Appeal 2017-009778
Application 13/510,055
As set forth above, the Examiner correctly finds that the present
invention addresses the problem of controlling the temperature of the fluid
entering the compressor. Ans. 3^4 (citing Spec. 8:1—11). Turning to
Devers, Devers teaches that “it [is] an object of this invention to provide
heat exchanger controls which overcome the above-mentioned and other
associated problems in handling low temperature fluids.” Devers 1:66—2:2.
Devers similarly teaches that “[ajnother object of this invention is to provide
an improved control method which reduces initial equipment temperature
requirements, and costs for heat exchange.” Id. at 2:3—5. Given that Devers
teaches control methods for controlling the temperature of fluids entering
equipment, Devers’ teachings would have logically commended themselves
to the present inventors’ attention in considering the problem of controlling
the temperature of fluid entering a compressor. As such, Devers is
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventors are involved,
and therefore analogous art to the claimed invention.
Having determined that Devers is analogous art to the claimed
invention, we also determine that the Examiner has a provided a reason
supported by rational underpinnings as to why person of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the teachings of Fanning and Devers. Namely, the
Examiner determines it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the teachings of Fanning to control the mass flow of
the process stream in response to at least a first temperature of the warmed
BOG stream, as taught by Devers, “for the purpose of ensuring sufficient
liquefaction of the process stream for given cooling capacities.”
Final Act. 6.
8
Appeal 2017-009778
Application 13/510,055
Appellants further argue that independent claim 1 recites two set point
temperatures, and that applying two set point temperatures simultaneously is
non-obvious and results in an advantageous method, not disclosed or
suggested by the cited documents. Br. 7. Appellants’ argument does not
apprise us of error.
Here, the Examiner has determined that the invention set forth in
independent claim 1 is obvious. Final Act. 2—6. Appellants’ argument does
not address the Examiner’s findings and determinations and therefore is not
persuasive of error. Furthermore, Appellants’ assertion that claimed
invention is advantageous is not persuasive because it is attorney argument
and not supported by evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence.”).
In view of the foregoing, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We therefore sustain the
rejection of claims 1—5, 8, and 10.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5, 8, and 10 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). 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9