Ex Parte Ransbarger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2017

11224747 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 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.
11/224,747 09/12/2005 Weldon L. Ransbarger 34193US 2917
28841 7590 11/14/2017
PnnnonPhillins; Pnmnanv
EXAMINER
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079-1175
PETTITT, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2017 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 WELDON L. RANSBARGER1
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—8, 10—14, and 16—20 in the present application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134.
We AFFIRM.
1 Referred to as “Appellant” herein. The real party in interest is
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (Appeal Brief (hereinafter “App. Br”) 1).
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
The claimed invention is directed to a process for liquefying natural
gas (Specification, Field of the Invention). Representative independent
claim 1 reads as follows (App. Br. 11, Claims App’x, emphasis added):
1. A process for liquefying a natural gas stream, said process
comprising:
(a) using a vapor/liquid separator to separate at least a
portion of said natural gas stream into a predominately vapor
separated stream and a predominately liquid separated stream;
(b) introducing at least a portion of said predominately
vapor separated stream into a lower section of a first distillation
column;
(c) using said first distillation column to separate at least a
portion of said predominately vapor separated stream into a first
relatively more volatile fraction and a first relatively less volatile
fraction;
(d) upon exiting said first distillation column combining
said first relatively less volatile fraction with said first
predominately liquid separated stream exiting said first
vapor/liquid separator to thereby provide a combined stream,
wherein the combined stream is conducted to a reflux condenser,
(e) using a second distillation column to separate said
combined stream into a second relatively more volatile fraction
and a second relatively less volatile fraction, said second
distillation column operating at a lower pressure than said first
distillation column;
(f) cooling at least a portion of said second relatively more
volatile faction via indirect heat exchange with said combined
stream; and
(g) using at least a portion of said second relatively more
volatile fraction as a reflux in said first and/or second distillation
columns, wherein the reflux is introducted [sic] into top portion
of said first and/or second distillation columns.
2
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-14, and 16—20 have been rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite (Final Act. 2).
The Examiner also rejected various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as follows:
2. Claims 1—4, 6—7, 10-12, 14, and 20 as unpatentable over
Mostafa (US 7,219,513 Bl; iss. May 22, 2007) in view of Khan (US RE
33,408; iss. Oct. 30, 1990) (Final Act. 3).
3. Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-14, and 16—20 as unpatentable over
Mostafa in view of Khan and further in view of Wilkinson (US
2003/0005722 Al; iss. Jan. 9, 2003 (hereinafter “Wilkinson ’722”)) (Final
Act. 6).
4. Claims 1—4, 6—7, 10-12, 14, and 20 as unpatentable over
Wilkinson (US 2002/0166336 Al; iss. Nov. 14, 2002 (hereinafter
“Wilkinson ’336”)) in view of Khan (Final Act. 8).
5. Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-14, and 16—20 as unpatentable over
Wilkinson ’336 and Khan and further in view of Wilkinson ’722 (Final Act.
11).
6. Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-14, and 16—20 as unpatentable over
Mostafa in view of Campbell (US 6,526,777 Bl; iss. Mar. 4, 2003) (Final
Act. 12).
7. Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-14, and 16—20 as unpatentable over
Wilkinson ’336 in view of Campbell (Final Act. 17).
3
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by the Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that the Appellant could have made
but chose not to make have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We also address the arguments in
an order that differs slightly from the order presented by the Appellant.
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1—4, 6—8, 10—14, and 16—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite (Final Office Action
(hereinafter “Final Act.”) 2). 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, recites that
“[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant
regards as his invention.” The Examiner sets forth reasons why independent
claim 1, and dependent claims 4, 8, and 10, fail to meet this statutory
requirement (Final Act. 2—3). The remaining claims ultimately depend from
independent claim 1.
The Appellant does not submit any arguments in its Appeal Brief in
response to the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection, and thus, does not
contest this rejection in the present appeal.2 The record is clear that the
Examiner has not withdrawn this rejection (Final Act. 2; Ans. 22).
2 We note that the Amendment dated January 22, 2015 filed by the
Appellant in response to the Final Office Action was not entered by the
Examiner for reasons set forth in the Advisory Action mailed February 20,
2015.
4
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
Accordingly, the indefiniteness rejection of all of the claims on appeal is
summarily affirmed.3
Rejection 4
Claims 1—4, 6—7, 10-12, 14, and 20 stand rejected as unpatentable
over Wilkinson ’336 in view of Khan. The Examiner refers to the
embodiments shown in Figures 14—16 and 18 of Wilkinson ’336 (Final Act.
8) and Figure 11 (Final Act. 23, citing Wilkinson ’3361107 that discusses
Fig. 11). The Examiner finds that Wilkinson ’336 discloses the recited steps
of claims 1—3 and 20, and also “teaches stream (35) to be a type of combined
stream in view of the teachings of Wilkinson to add the stream 33 to the
column (15).” (Final Act. 9, 22). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that this
disclosure in Wilkinson ’366 is only suggestive as to the claimed combined
stream, and “does not explicitly teach combining the predominantly liquid
3 In addition to the reasons for the rejection as set forth by the Examiner, we
also note, but do not rely upon in affirming this rejection, that it is not
entirely clear how claim 10 is consistent with independent claim 1. In
particular, claim 1 recites that in step “(g),” reflux is introduced into “top
portion of the first and/or second distillation columns,” but steps “(k)”
through “(m)” of claim 10 recites that the reflux is separated into first and
second reflux streams, and introduced into “an upper section” of the first and
second distillation columns, respectively. The steps of claim 10 are recited
as separate steps from step “(g)”, and not as elaborating or further limiting
step “(g)” of claim 1. Accordingly, it is not entirely clear how a reflux that
is introduced into the top portion of first and/or second distillation columns,
can also be separated into first and second reflux streams that are introduced
into the upper sections of first and second distillation columns as recited in
claim 10.
5
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
stream (33) and the first less volatile traction (35) before cooling in the
reflux condenser (20).” (Final Act. 9).
The Examiner relies on Khan to establish that “it is well known to
combine the predominantly liquid stream (34) and the first less volatile
fraction (76) before cooling the second more volatile fraction (48) in a reflux
condenser (38, 66).” (Final Act. 9; see also Khan, Fig. 1). Indeed, the
Appellant does not dispute this finding with respect to Khan.
The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify
Wilkinson [’336] with a line to combine the predominantly liquid stream
(33) and the first less volatile fraction (35) before cooling in heat exchanger
(20)” in order to provide this combined stream as an additional cooling flow
to heat exchanger 20 (Final Act. 9). Referring to Figure 18 of Wilkinson
’336, the Examiner explains that supplemental external refrigeration
“REFRIG” provided to heat exchanger 20 can be eliminated or reduced by
providing the combined streams 33a and 35a as an additional internal
cooling stream (Ans. 30-31).
In the above regard, the Examiner also points to paragraph [0107] of
Wilkinson ’336 as suggesting using the combined streams 33 and 35 to
offset external refrigeration requirements in heat exchanger 20 in other
embodiments (Final Act. 23; Ans. 30). Indeed, Wilkinson ’336 states that
“other process streams and/or external refrigeration may be used to
supplement the cooling provided to the deethanizer overhead by the
separator/absorber overhead (stream 34) in heat exchanger 20, such as the
flash expanded liquid (stream 35a in FIG. 11) from the bottom of the
6
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
separator/absorber” (Wilkinson ’336 1107). We agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion and address the Appellant’s arguments below.
The Appellant argues that the rejection is based on impermissible
hindsight because “[t]he Examiner provides no indication of insufficiency of
cooling in the heat exchanger 20. Yet, for the purposes of meeting the
requirements of Claim 1, the Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in
the relevant art would have re-routed stream 33 ... to instead cool heat
exchanger 20.” (App. Br. 6). However, as discussed above, the Examiner
has provided a reason with rational underpinnings as to why the suggested
modification would have been desirable, that is, to eliminate or reduce the
supplemental external refrigeration “REFRIG” to heat exchanger 20.
The Appellant further argues that “Examiner does not account for
negative effects on heat exchanger 10 in his proposed re-routing of stream
33 from heat exchanger 10 to heat exchanger 20.” (App. Br. 6). However,
we find persuasive, the Examiner’s reasoning that even if there are negative
effects on heat exchanger 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to utilize external refrigeration at heat exchanger 10 instead of
heat exchanger 20 because heat exchanger 10 operates at higher temperature
than heat exchanger 20, and a person of ordinary skill would know that
providing external refrigeration for lower temperatures (i.e., colder medium)
is more inefficient and costlier than providing external refrigeration (or
increasing such external refrigeration) at higher temperatures (i.e., hotter
medium) (Final Act. 23; see also Ans. 31).
The Appellant also argues that “paragraph [0107] of Wilkinson ’336
discusses stream 35a (the flash expanded stream 35) as the external
7
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
refrigerant. That is, cited paragraph [0107] indicates the sufficiency of
stream 35 as a coolant in heat exchanger 20.” (App. Br. 7). However, as
Examiner explains (Ans. 31—32), this assertion of the Appellant is
inconsistent with the disclosure of Wilkinson ’336 in which both steam 35a
and external refrigeration “REFRIG” are provided as coolants to heat
exchanger 20 (Wilkinson ’336, Fig. 18).
Therefore, in view of the above, the Appellant’s arguments against the
proposed combination of Wilkinson and Kahn are unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The Appellant
does not separately argue the limitations of dependent claims 2-4, 6—7,
10—12, 14, and 20. Hence, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these
dependent claims.
Rejection 5
Rejection 5 is also based on the combination of Wilkinson ’336 and
Khan, and presents the same issue addressed supra relative to Rejection 2,
Wilkinson ’722 being merely cited for explicitly disclosing liquefication of
natural gas (Final Act. 11; see also App. Br. 7). Indeed, the Appellant relies
on the same arguments submitted with respect to Rejection 4 in seeking
reversal of Rejection 5 (App. Br. 7). Accordingly, Rejection 5 is affirmed
for the reasons already discussed above.
Rejection 7
Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-14, and 16—20 also stand rejected as
unpatentable over Wilkinson ’336 in view of Campbell, the Examiner
8
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
relying on Campbell for establishing that it was known in the art to
“combin[e] the predominantly liquid stream (73) and the first less volatile
fraction (77) and conducting the combined stream to a reflux condenser
(50).” (Final Act. 18; see also Campbell, Figs. 4, 7). The Appellant
observes that “the Examiner proposes to modify Wilkinson ’336 based on
Campbell in the same way that the Examiner proposes to modify Wilkinson
’336 based on Khan” (App. Br. 9). Accordingly, the Appellant relies on the
arguments submitted with respect to Rejections 4 and 5 in seeking reversal
of this rejection (App. Br. 9). Hence, Rejection 7 is affirmed for reasons
substantially the same as those discussed above relative to Rejection 4.
Rejections 2 and 3
These rejections reject the claims on appeal based on the combination
of Mostafa in view of Khan, Rejection 3 further relying on Wilkinson ’722
(Final Act. 3—8, 22). However, because we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of all of the appealed claims in affirming Rejections 1, 4, 5, and 7 for the
reasons discussed above, we decline to reach Rejections 2 and 3.
Rejection 6
Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-14, and 16—20 are also rejected as unpatentable
over the combination of Mostafa in view of Campbell. However, because
we affirm Rejections 1, 4, 5, and 7, and these rejections reach all of the
claims on appeal, we decline to reach Rejection 6.
9
Appeal 2016-007028
Application 11/224,747
CONCLUSIONS
Rejections 1, 4, 5, and 7 are AFFIRMED. We do not reach Rejections
2, 3, and 6.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10