11609732 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2011)

Ex Parte Ploeg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 28, 2011

11609732 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/609,732 12/12/2006 Johannes Everdinus Gerrit Ploeg TS1720 USA 1596 23632 7590 04/28/2011 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 772522463 EXAMINER AKRAM, IMRAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1723 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/28/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte JOHANNES EVERDINUS GERRIT PLOEG and JACOBUS HENDRIKUS SCHEERMAN ________________ Appeal 2010-007262 Application 11/609,732 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007262 Application 11/609,732 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of producing a synthesis gas by partial oxidation of a carbonaceous stream, wherein the partial oxidation is controlled using an oxygen to carbon ratio. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of producing synthesis gas by partial oxidation of a carbonaceous stream, wherein the partial oxidation is controlled using an oxygen to carbon ratio, the method comprising at least the steps of: (a) feeding a carbonaceous stream and an oxygen containing stream into a gasification reactor at a selected oxygen to carbon ratio; (b) at least partially oxidizing the carbonaceous stream in the gasification reactor, thereby obtaining a gaseous product stream at least containing synthesis gas and a content of CO2; (c) determining the content of CO2 in the product stream obtained in step (b); (d) comparing the content determined in step (c) with a pre-determined content thereby possibly obtaining a difference value between the content of CO2 determined in step (c) and the pre-determined content of CO2; (e) adjusting the oxygen to carbon ratio in step (a) based on the difference value obtained in step (d). Appellants request review of the following rejections: Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Teng, US Patent Application 2006/0204910 A1, published September 14, 2006. Appeal 2010-007262 Application 11/609,732 3 Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Weaver, US Patent Application 2003/0089038 A1, published May 15, 2003. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weaver. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Teng. OPINION The rejections over Teng The first issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in determining that Teng describes a method of producing synthesis gas by partial oxidation of a carbonaceous stream, as required by independent claim 1? We answer this question in the affirmative. We REVERSE. We reverse the stated rejections for the reasons set forth by the Appellants. The Examiner found that Teng describes the partial oxidation of a carbonaceous stream employing the method steps as outlined in appealed claim 1. (Ans. 3). The Examiner recognizes that the preamble of claim 1 specifies the invention is directed to a method of “producing synthesis gas.” However, the Examiner has not given the preamble recitation “producing synthesis gas” or the limitation in step (b), “at least containing synthesis gas” significant patentable weight. (Ans. 5-6). Appellants argue, and we agree, that Teng does not anticipate the process of claim 1 because Teng does not produce a synthesis gas. Teng Appeal 2010-007262 Application 11/609,732 4 specifically describes a control system for fuel injected heating appliances to achieve efficient combustion by controlling the proportion of fuel and other air variables. (App. Br. 3, Teng [0025]). The weight of the evidence indicates that Teng is directed to a high-efficiency fuel injection system for gas appliances that are used to combust gas and does not produce a synthesis gas. The rejection of claim 6 over Teng fails for the same reasons presented above. The Examiner’s explanation for the § 103(a) rejection does not address the fact that Teng does not produce a synthesis gas. The rejections over Weaver Appellants argue that Weaver does not anticipate the process of claim 1 because Weaver does not disclose determining the content of CO2 in the product stream and adjusting the oxygen to carbon ratio in the feed to the gasifier as specified by the claimed invention. (App. Br. 3-4). The second issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in determining that Weaver describes a method of producing synthesis gas that comprises determining the content of CO2 in the product stream and adjusting the oxygen to carbon ratio in the feed to the gasification reactor, as required by independent claim 1? 1 We answer this question in the negative. We AFFIRM. The Examiner correctly found that Weaver describes a process for producing a synthesis gas that comprises determining the content of CO2 in the product stream and adjusting the oxygen to carbon ratio in the feed to the gasification reactor. (Ans. 4, Weaver [0007], [0024]). Appellants have not 1 Appellants have not presented separate arguments for all of the rejected claims. Consequently, we will limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Appeal 2010-007262 Application 11/609,732 5 specifically addressed the portions of Weaver relied upon by the Examiner. Moreover, Appellants have not explained why the Examiner’s interpretation of the specifically cited portions of the Weaver reference is incorrect. That is, Appellants have failed to explain why the cited portions of Weaver do not describe determining the content of CO2 in the product stream and adjusting the oxygen to carbon ratio in the feed to the gasification reactor. As to claim 5, Appellants rely upon the arguments that were presented in addressing the subject matter of claim 1. (App. Br. 4). These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Thus for the reasons presented in this Decision and those presented by the Examiner, we uphold the Examiner’s rejections over Weaver. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 over Teng are reversed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 over Weaver are affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART bar