Ex Parte Raman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 15, 201412415042 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/415,042 03/31/2009 Pattabhi K. Raman FN-0032 US NP1 2015 77003 7590 10/15/2014 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP 300 S. WACKER DRIVE SUITE 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1771 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2014 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 PATTABHI K. RAMAN, FRANCIS S. LAU, and EARL T. ROBINSON ________________ Appeal 2013-001073 Application 12/415,042 Technology Center 1771 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a process for catalytically converting a carbonaceous feedstock into gaseous products contained in a gas stream, and for separating hydrogen and methane from the gas stream. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A process for converting a carbonaceous feedstock into a plurality of gaseous products contained in a gas stream, and for separating hydrogen and methane from the gas stream, the process comprising the steps of: Appeal 2013-001073 Application 12/415,042 2 (a) supplying a carbonaceous feedstock to a gasification reactor, wherein the carbonaceous feedstock includes a carbon source selected from the group consisting of coal, petroleum coke, asphaltene, liquid petroleum residue, biomass and mixtures thereof; (b) reacting the carbonaceous feedstock in the gasification reactor in the presence of steam and a gasification catalyst and under suitable temperature and pressure to form a first gas stream comprising methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and one or more additional gaseous by- products; (c) removing a substantial portion of the carbon dioxide and a substantial portion of the one or more additional gaseous by- products from the first gas stream to produce a second gas stream comprising methane, hydrogen, and optionally carbon monoxide; (d) at least partially separating hydrogen from the second gas stream to form a hydrogen-enriched gas stream and a hydrogen- depleted gas stream, wherein the hydrogen-depleted gas stream comprises methane, optionally carbon monoxide and up to about 4 mol% hydrogen; wherein, if the heating value of the hydrogen-depleted gas stream is less than 950 btu/scf (dry basis), and if the hydrogen- depleted gas stream comprises 1000 ppm or more of carbon monoxide: (1) at least partially separating carbon monoxide from the hydrogen-depleted gas stream to form (i) a carbon monoxide-enriched gas stream and (ii) a methane-enriched gas stream having a heating value of at least 950 btu/scf (dry basis); or (2) at least partially methanating the carbon monoxide in the hydrogen-depleted gas stream to form a methane-enriched gas stream. The References Eakman US 4,118,204 Oct. 3, 1978 Cheung US 4,235,044 Nov. 25, 1980 Henley US 4,872,886 Oct. 10, 1989 Foley GB 2 154 600 A Sep. 11, 1985 Appeal 2013-001073 Application 12/415,042 3 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-6 over Foley in view of Cheung and Eakman and claims 7-20 over Foley in view of Cheung, Eakman and Henley. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need to address only the broadest independent claim, i.e., claim 1.1 That claim requires “supplying a carbonaceous feedstock to a gasification reactor, wherein the carbonaceous feedstock includes a carbon source selected from the group consisting of coal, petroleum coke, asphaltene, liquid petroleum residue, biomass and mixtures thereof.” Foley states (p. 1, ll. 9-10) that the basic catalytic rich gas (CRG) process is disclosed in UK Patent Specification 820,257 (UK ʼ257). UK ʼ257 produces methane from mixtures of predominately paraffinic hydrocarbons containing an average of 4-10 carbon atoms, such as petroleum distillates (p. 1, ll. 9-13). UK ʼ257 refers to petroleum distillate containing an average of 4-7 carbon atoms as light petroleum distillate (light paraffinic hydrocarbons) (p. 1, ll. 14-17; p. 2, ll. 103-07) and refers to petroleum distillate containing an average of 10 carbon atoms as heavier petroleum distillate (p. 3, ll. 3-8). Foley immediately follows that statement with a discussion of the typical CRG process for processing light naphtha and heavier feedstocks and Foley’s CRG process for processing heavier feedstocks (p. 1, ll. 12-26). 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Henley for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to claim 1 (Ans. 8-10). Appeal 2013-001073 Application 12/415,042 4 Thus, Foley indicates that Foley’s terms “heavier feedstocks” (p. 2, l. 30) and “heavy feedstocks” (p. 3, l. 47) have the same meaning as UK ʼ257’s term “heavier petroleum distillate,” i.e., petroleum distillate containing an average of 10 carbon atoms. Cheung discloses a coal gasification process (col. 6, ll. 12-14). Eakman gasifies coal, petroleum coke, heavy oil and other carbonaceous materials (col. 2, ll. 61-64; col. 4, ll. 14-17). The Examiner asserts that “the claimed liquid petroleum residue feedstock is a heavy hydrocarbon feedstock such as broadly recited in Foley” (Ans. 5). “‘[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Appellants’ Specification states (¶ 45): The term “liquid petroleum residue” as used herein includes both (i) the liquid thermal decomposition product of high-boiling hydrocarbon fractions obtained in petroleum processing (heavy residues – “resid liquid petroleum residue”) and (ii) the liquid thermal decomposition product of processing tar sands (bituminous sands or oil sands – “tar sands liquid petroleum residue”). The liquid petroleum residue is substantially non-solid at room temperature; for example, it can take the form of a thick fluid or a sludge. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellants’ claim term “liquid petroleum residue” consistent with the Appellants’ Specification excludes Foley’s heavier feedstocks which, as indicated by Foley, are Appeal 2013-001073 Application 12/415,042 5 hydrocarbons having an average of 10 carbon atoms and, therefore, are much lighter than the Appellants’ liquid petroleum residue. The Examiner argues that “the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize coal, petroleum coke, and heavy oils such as liquid petroleum residues as being suitable for use as feed material in the process of Foley, as evidenced by the use of such feeds in the similar gasification processes of Cheung and Eakman” (Ans. 7-8). The Examiner has not provided evidence or technical reasoning which shows that the processes of Cheung and Eakman are sufficiently similar to that of Foley that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Cheung’s and Eakman’s feedstocks to be suitable for use in Foley’s process. The Examiner has provided mere speculation to that effect, and such speculation is not a sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962). 2 Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-6 over Foley in view of Cheung and Eakman and claims 7-20 over Foley in view of Cheung, Eakman and Henley are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 2 The Appellants acknowledge that “[a] catalytic gasifier for gasifying liquid feeds, such as liquid petroleum residues, is disclosed in previously incorporated US6955695” (Spec. ¶ 28). Appeal 2013-001073 Application 12/415,042 6 tc Appeal 2013-001073 Application 12/415,042 7 DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge I respectfully dissent from the decision of my colleagues to reverse the Examiner’s rejections. The reversal appears to be based on the Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 9; see also id. at 10) that the particular feedstocks recited in claim 1 “are not suitable for use in the process of Foley” (Decision at 5). That naked assertion, which is nothing more than attorney argument, is ineffective to demonstrate reversible error on the part of the Examiner. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[E]ven assuming that the examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in framing the issue as one of ‘reversible error.’”). As found by the Examiner (Ans. 6), Foley teaches that the disclosed process is suitable for “hydrocarbon feedstocks” (Abst.; p. 4, claim 1). Therefore, Foley’s disclosure is not limited to those described in UK ’257. Furthermore, I find nothing in the Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10) refuting the Examiner’s factual findings that Cheung and Eakman teach the successful processing of certain feedstocks within the scope of the Appellants’ claims in accordance with techniques similar to that shown in Foley. Given the collective teachings of the prior art references, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Foley’s technique––through nothing more than routine adjustments involving ordinary creativity––in the processing of the feedstocks disclosed in Cheung and Eakman to achieve a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in Appeal 2013-001073 Application 12/415,042 8 the art would employ.”); id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation