10922031 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 19, 2010)

Ex Parte Ploemen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 19, 2010

10922031 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 19, 2010)

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. 10/922,031 08/19/2004 Ingmar Hubertus Josephina Ploemen TS1190 (US) 1383 23632 7590 08/19/2010 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 772522463 EXAMINER COVINGTON, RAYMOND K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/19/2010 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 INGMAR HUBERTUS JOSEPHINA PLOEMEN, EDUARDUS PETRUS SIMON SCHOUTEN, and ALEXANDER JAN VAN DER VEEN __________ Appeal 2009-007824 Application 10/922,031 Technology Center 1600 __________ Before ERIC GRIMES, DONALD E. ADAMS, and DEMETRA J. MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges. MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-007824 Application 10/922,031 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected the claims for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF CASE The following claim is representative. 1. A process for the preparation of alkylene oxide, which process comprises: (i) mixing fresh feed containing organic hydroperoxide and alkene with a recycle stream to obtain a reaction mixture containing from 5 %wt to 80 %wt of alcohol, based on total amount of reaction mixture; (ii) contacting the reaction mixture with a heterogeneous epoxidation catalyst to obtain a stream containing alkylene oxide and alcohol; and, (iii) recycling from 30 %wt to 95 %wt of the stream obtained in step (ii) to step (i), resulting in a remainder stream and a recycle stream from step (ii). Cited References Kollar US 3,350,422 Oct. 31, 1967 Stein et al. US 3,849,451 Nov. 19, 1974 Grounds of Rejection Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Stein in view of Kollar.2 2 We note that the rejection in the Answer is stated as being based on “Stein . . . or Kollar” (Answer 3), which we take as a typographical error as the references have been applied in combination (see Answer 4). Appeal 2009-007824 Application 10/922,031 3 Discussion ISSUE The Examiner finds that “Stein et al does not teach the percent alcohol product in the recycle reaction product mixture. However amounts within the claimed range are taught in Kollar.” (Ans. 4.) The Examiner also finds that “Kollar teaches preparing alkylene oxide compounds by reacting organic hydroperoxide and alkene in a reaction mixture containing alcohol within the claimed range.” (Id.) Appellants do not respond to the rejection over Stein in view of Kollar. The issue is: Have Appellants rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness? PRINCIPLES OF LAW “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, we consider the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966): (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present. Appeal 2009-007824 Application 10/922,031 4 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Examiner finds that Stein et al teach preparing alkylene oxide, e.g. propylene oxide, by reacting an organic hydroperoxide, e.g. cumene hydroperoxide and alkene, e.g. propylene in a reaction mixture containing alcohol within the claimed range using a heterogeneous catalyst epoxidation catalyst wherein the reaction mixture is recycled in-part with more reactants. See, for example, column 6 lines 35-70 (recycling propylene), column 3 lines 1+ particularly lines 4, 5,7,15,16 (starting material), column 2 lines 50-56 columns ( the recycling step and that other materials, e.g. reaction mixture containing alcohol) 7-8 Table I (showing reaction mixture component percentages). (Ans. 4.) 2. “Kollar teaches preparing alkylene oxide compounds by reacting organic hydroperoxide and alkene in a reaction mixture containing alcohol within the claimed range. See column 3 lines 33-70, column 4 lines 23-70, column 6 lines 61-75, column 9 examples 2 and 3, and column 10, table 1.” (Id.) 3. “Stein et al does not teach the percent alcohol product in the recycle reaction product mixture. However amounts within the claimed range are taught in Kollar.” (Id.) 4. The Examiner concludes that “to modify Stein et al based on the teachings of Kollar, to obtain better process mixing and prolonged catalyst life would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the use of analogous process techniques in an otherwise known process to obtain an expected result.” (Id.) Appeal 2009-007824 Application 10/922,031 5 ANALYSIS Appellants do not respond in the Appeal Brief to the obviousness rejection on appeal, Stein in view of Kollar. No Reply Brief has been filed. Thus, Appellants have not shown any error in the Examiner’s rejection. We affirm the obviousness rejection before us. CONCLUSION OF LAW The cited references support the Examiner’s obviousness rejection which has not been rebutted by Appellants. 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 cdc SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463