Ex Parte Remans et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12638664 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/638,664 12/15/2009 Thomas Joris REMANS
23632 7590 02/18/2016
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TS2227 (US) 5448
EXAMINER
KEYS,ROSALYNDANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS JORIS REMANS and
WILHELMUS JOHANNES FRANCISCUS SCHOLTEN1
Appeal2013-007659
Application 12/638,664
Technology Center 1600
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JOHN G. NEW, and
JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants state the real party-in-interest is Shell Oil Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-007659
Application 12/638,664
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Wright et al. (US 6,869,978 B2, March 22, 2005)
("Wright") alone or in combination with Te Raa et al. (US 200710122322
Al, May 31, 2007) ("Te Raa") and Tonkovich et al. (US 2010/0081726 Al,
April 1, 2010) ("Tonkovich").
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Appellants argue all of the claims together. App. Br. 3--4. Claim 1 is
representative and recites:
App. Br. 6.
1. A process for carrying out a high-speed stop in a
Fischer-Tropsch process which comprises providing a
feed comprising CO and H2 to a fixed bed reactor
comprising a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst, the reactor
being at reaction temperature and pressure, the gaseous
hourly space velocity in the reactor being in the range
from 500 to 10000 Nl/1/h, and withdrawing an effluent
from the reactor;
wherein the high-speed stop is effected by blocking
provision of H2 to the reactor while providing CO to
the reactor, and withdrawing gaseous reactor content
from the reactor;
and wherein during the high-speed stop CO is added in
an amount of 5-80 Nl/l/h.
THE EXAMINER'S PRIMA F ACIE CASE
2
Appeal2013-007659
Application 12/638,664
The Examiner finds that, although Wright does not expressly teach a
high-speed stop occurring in the Fischer-Tropsch process, such a stop
necessarily occurs when the process taught by Wright cuts off the flow of
synthesis gas to the reaction chamber. Final Act. 2. The Examiner further
finds Wright teaches blocking provision of CO and H2 to the reactor and
admitting a regeneration gas: suitable regeneration gases are explicitly
taught by Wright as being any Fischer-Tropsch regeneration gas. Id. at 3.
The Examiner cites Nay et al. (US 5,728,918, March 17, 1998) ("Nay") as
evidence that it was well-known in the art that CO is a regeneration gas. Id.
The Examiner concludes that one having ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to conduct the well-known Fischer-Tropsch reaction taught
by Wright, substituting CO as a regeneration gas, as was well-known in the
art. Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner's fact-finding and reasoning.
ISSUE
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combined cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 3--4.
ANALYSIS
Because the Examiner states Te Raa and Tonkovich were not cited as
teaching a high-speed stop in a Fischer-Tropsch process, and Appellants
make no argument to the contrary, we address only Appellants' arguments
with respect to Wright. See Ans. 9.
Appellants argue Wright is directed to a process for regenerating a
catalyst used in a process for synthesizing hydrocarbons, such as a Fischer-
3
Appeal2013-007659
Application 12/638,664
Tropsch process. App. Br. 4. According to Appellants, the regeneration
process involves contacting a deactivated Fischer-Tropsch catalyst with a
regeneration gas under regeneration-promoting conditions. Id. Appellants
therefore contend the reference neither teaches nor suggests a process for
carrying out a high-speed stop in a Fischer-Tropsch process. Id. Rather,
Appellants argue, the regeneration process is conducted after the catalyst has
become deactivated and not during a high-speed stop, which may be
required under certain unfavorable conditions. Id. According to Appellants,
there is a difference between a high-speed stop and a normal stop that is
performed during routine operation. Id.
Further, argue Appellants, Wright does not disclose performing such a
high-speed stop by blocking the provision of hydrogen gas to the reactor
while providing carbon monoxide and withdrawing gaseous reactor content
from the fixed bed reactor. Id.
The Examiner responds that, although Wright does not explicitly
disclose a high-speed stop, such a stop must necessarily occur when the
system of Wright cycles between reaction and regeneration. Ans. 7 (citing
Wright col. 11, 11. 4--7; cols. 8-9, 11. 1-15). The Examiner finds that, in
cycling between the Fischer-Tropsch reaction and catalyst regeneration
Wright teaches simultaneously closing valve 220 and opening valve 250. Id.
(citing, e.g., Wright cols. 10-11, 11. 41-7). The Examiner finds Wright
teaches that when valve 220 is closed, the provision of synthesis gas is
stopped, i.e., blocked and, further, the simultaneous opening of valve 250
allows regeneration gas to enter the reactor. Id. As a result, the Examiner
finds, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the reaction would
necessarily stop. Id. at 8.
4
Appeal2013-007659
Application 12/638,664
The Examiner further finds it was well-known in the art at the time of
invention that carbon monoxide is a Fischer-Tropsch regeneration gas. Ans.
8 (citing, e.g., Nay, col. 1, 11. 26-49). Although carbon monoxide is not
explicitly taught by Wright as a regeneration gas, the Examiner points out
that a reference need not disclose what is well-known in the art. Id. (citing
In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (C.C.P.A. 1969)).
Finally, the Examiner also finds the gaseous reactor contents (which
may include unreacted synthesis gas, reaction products that are typically
gaseous under Fischer-Tropsch reaction conditions, and volatized
hydrocarbons) are withdrawn from the reactor via stream 240. Id.
We agree with the Examiner's reasoning and adopt it as our own. The
Examiner finds, and Appellants do not contest, that the regeneration gas is
supplied to the reaction chamber at a rate that is consistent with the range of
rates required by claim 1. See Ans. 8.
Wright further teaches: "When the activity of the catalyst falls to a
pre-determined level, valve 220 is closed separating feed stream [i.e., CO
and H2] 200 from reactor 230. Simultaneously, valve 250 is opened letting a
regeneration gas stream 260 into reactor 230." Wright col. 10, 11. 53-57.
Thus we agree with the Examiner that Wright explicitly teaches that the
supply of the reaction gas H2 (and, of course, CO as well) is blocked as
valve 220 is closed.
Wright, however, teaches, with respect to the regeneration gas:
The regeneration gas may be any conventional regeneration gas,
preferably a regeneration gas for a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst.
Thus, the regeneration gas is preferably chosen from among
hydrogen-containing gases, such as hydrogen gas, oxygen-
containing gases, such as air and oxygen gas, steam, inert gases
such as nitrogen and the like, and non-explosive combinations
5
Appeal2013-007659
Application 12/638,664
thereof For example, one preferred regeneration gas includes
steam and hydrogen. The hydrogen is preferably present with the
steam in an amount not exceeding 5% by volume of the total
regeneration gas.
Wright col. 8, 11. 54---65 (emphasis added). Thus, although Wright teaches
the regeneration gas may be any conventional gas, Wright also discloses
that, at least in some embodiments, provision of H2 is not blocked as
required by claim 1.
However, the Examiner points to Nay as reflective of what was well-
known in the art ofFischer-Tropsch processes at the time of invention. Nay
states that a regeneration gas:
[M]ay be composed substantially entirely of carbon monoxide or
of carbon monoxide containing only small amounts of other
materials e.g. up to 10% v/v such as 1-10%, but the gas may if
desired contain up to 95% v. e.g. 10-95% for example up to 60%
v e.g. 20-50% v based on the total volume of the gas), of other
components such as nitrogen or argon which are inert. These
gases may act as inert carrier gases. The gas comprising carbon
monoxide is preferably substantially free from hydrogen. If it
does contain some hydrogen, it is essential that the hydrogen
content of the gas is less than 30, especially less than 20,
preferably less than 10 and most preferably less than 5, % v based
on the volume of carbon monoxide; the gas may contain 1-30%
or 5-20% v/v hydrogen (based on carbon monoxide).
Nay col. 1, 11. 38-51 (emphasis added). We therefore agree with the
Examiner's finding that a person of ordinary skill would understand that a
regeneration gas consisting of H2-free carbon-monoxide was well-known in
the art.
Finally, Wright teaches: "A product stream 240 from the reactor may
include water, a byproduct of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, un-reacted
6
Appeal2013-007659
Application 12/638,664
synthesis gas components, that is carbon monoxide and hydrogen and
hydrocarbon products produced under Fischer-Tropsch reaction conditions."
Wright col. 10, 11. 46-51. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Wright
thus teaches "withdrawing gaseous reactor content from the reactor" as
required by claim 1.
We therefore agree with the Examiner's conclusion that a person of
ordinary skill would have found it obvious to combine knowledge well-
known in the art (as exemplified by Nay) with the teachings of Wright to
provide claim 1 's requirement of:
A process for carrying out a high-speed stop in a Fischer-
Tropsch process .... wherein the high-speed stop is effected by
blocking provision ofH2 to the reactor while providing CO to the
reactor, and withdrawing gaseous reactor content from the
reactor; and wherein during the high-speed stop CO is added in
an amount of 5-80 Nl/l/h.
We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of the claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth supra, we agree with the Examiner's
reasoning that claims 1-20 are prima facie obvious. We consequently
affirm the rejection of the claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
7
Appeal2013-007659
Application 12/638,664
kis
AFFIRMED
8