Ex Parte Ransbarger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12554539 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
12/554,539 09/04/2009 Weldon L. Ransbarger 34281US 8740
28841 7590 03/01/2017
PnnnonPhillins; Pnmnanv
EXAMINER
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079-1175
TEITELBAUM, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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. RANSBARGER, MEGAN V. EVANS,
ATTILIO J. PRADERIO, and DAVID B. MESSERSMITH
Appeal 2015-005094
Application 12/554,539
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Weldon L. Ransbarger et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5, 9, 10, and 13.
Claims 6—8, 11, 12, and 14—32 are withdrawn from consideration. Br. 4
(filed Dec. 3, 2014). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-005094
Application 12/554,539
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims1 are directed to a process for liquefying natural gas. Claim
1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A process for liquefying a natural gas stream, the process
comprising:
(a) cooling said natural gas stream via indirect heat
exchange with a first refrigerant in a first closed-loop
refrigeration cycle to provide a cooled natural gas stream;
(b) further cooling at least a portion of the cooled natural
gas stream via indirect heat exchange with a predominantly
methane refrigerant in an open-loop refrigeration cycle to
provide a further cooled natural gas stream, wherein the open-
loop refrigeration cycle comprises a refrigerant compressor;
(c) separating an incondensable material from at least a
portion of the further cooled natural gas stream in a first
separation vessel to provide an incondensables-depleted
predominantly liquid bottoms fraction and an incondensables-
rich predominantly vapor overhead fraction, wherein at least a
portion of said further cooled natural gas stream introduced into
said first separation vessel has passed through said refrigerant
compressor;
(d) routing the incondensables-rich predominantly vapor
overhead fraction to a fuel gas system for use as a fuel gas; and
(e) recovering the incondensables-depleted predominantly
liquid bottoms fraction back into the predominantly methane
refrigerant of the open-loop refrigeration cycle, wherein the
incondensables-depleted predominantly liquid bottoms fraction
is controllably routed from the first separation vessel routed
directly to an inlet of a main heat exchanger of the open-loop
refrigeration cycle along a first path and from the first separation
1 The claims were amended by Appellants in an Amendment After
Final rejection, filed August 4, 2014, that was entered by the Examiner as
per the Advisory Action mailed Sept. 5, 2014. Accordingly, the claims that
are before us are as they appear in the Claims Appendix of Appellants’
Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 3, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-005094
Application 12/554,539
vessel to an outlet of the main heat exchanger of the open-loop
refrigeration cycle along a bypass path.
Appeal Br. 14, Claims App’x. (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lassiat US 2,186,029 Jan. 9, 1940
Low US 6,070,429 June 6, 2000
Eaton US 2005/0284176 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Lee US 7,082,787 B2 Aug. 1, 2006
REJECTION
Claims 1—5, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Low, Lee, Lassiat, and Eaton.
OPINION
Claim 1 recites, in part, that “the incondensables-depleted
predominantly liquid bottoms fraction is controllably routed from the first
separation vessel routed directly to an inlet of a main heat exchanger of the
open-loop refrigeration cycle along a first path.” Br. 14.
The Examiner finds that Low discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 including a closed-loop refrigeration cycle and an open-loop
refrigeration cycle. Final Act. 3 (citing Low, col. 17,11. 59-60, col. 18,11.
60-64, col. 20,11. 25—28, col. 21,11. 36—37, Fig. 1). The Examiner relies on
Eaton for routing the incondensables-depleted predominantly liquid bottoms
3
Appeal 2015-005094
Application 12/554,539
fraction from a separation vessel to an inlet of a main heat exchanger, and
refers to an annotated version of Eaton’s Figure 1 to identify where Eaton
performs this action. See Final Act. 5—6.
Appellants argue that, “Eaton clearly discloses a path that includes
several structures, including multiple heat exchangers, along which the
expelled portion of liquid bottoms fraction flows before entering the main
heat exchanger of the open-loop methane cycle.” Br. 11. Appellants assert
that the “claimed invention . . . provides a distinct process by positioning the
separation vessel in a unique location and fluidly coupling it directly to the
main heat exchanger of the open-loop methane cycle.” Id.
The Examiner responds that, because the term “comprising” does not
exclude additional elements, “even though the liquids bottom fraction flows
through other elements, the liquid bottom fraction flow[s] to ‘an inlet of a
main heat exchanger,’ as claimed.” Ans. 11.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for two reasons. First,
claim 1 requires that the liquid bottoms fraction is “routed directly to an inlet
of a main heat exchanger” (emphasis added), not that the liquid bottom
fraction eventually flows to an inlet of the main heat exchanger. The term
“directly,” in the context of claim 1, excludes intermediate elements such as
those taught by Eaton. Although the use of the term “comprising” in the
preamble of independent claim 1 allows for additional structural elements
not recited in the claim, it does not justify reading a claim limitation defining
a structural feature (i.e., routing liquid bottom fractions directly from
separation vessel to an inlet of main heat exchanger) recited in the claim in a
manner that is broader than that limitation permits. Second, the lead arrow
4
Appeal 2015-005094
Application 12/554,539
for “an inlet of the heat exchanger” 74 in the Examiner’s annotated version
of Figure 1 of Eaton appears to point to conduit 154, which is routed from
chiller 2, not heavies removal column 60. See Eaton, para. 45. Even if the
Examiner’s lead arrow is intended to point to conduit 148, this conduit is at
an outlet of heat exchanger 74, not an inlet. See id., para. 43, Fig. 1. The
Examiner’s use of Lee and Lassiat does not remedy the deficiencies
discussed above regarding Eaton. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 9, 10, and 13 as unpatentable over Low,
Lee, Lassiat, and Eaton.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5, 9, 10, and 13 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5