Ex Parte Respini et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 4, 201412024251 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARCO RESPINI and ENRICO MADEDDU ____________ Appeal 2013-001818 Application 12/024,251 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appeal 2013-001818 Application 12/024,251 2 Appellants claim a method for reducing fouling from quench oil (sole independent claims 1 and 9). A copy of claims 1 and 9, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A method for reducing fouling from quench oil comprising: treating a hydrocarbon feed using a cracking process having a quenching step wherein: quench oil used in the quenching step has a known tendency to cause fouling; the known tendency of the quench oil to cause fouling has been determined by measuring a tendency of the quench oil to precipitate polymeric species; and the method comprises adjusting process conditions in the cracking process to reduce fouling based upon the tendency of the quenching oil in the quenching step to cause fouling. 9. A method for reducing fouling from quench oil comprising: treating a hydrocarbon feed using a cracking process having a quenching step, and introducing an additive to reduce fouling to the cracking process based upon a tendency of the quench oil in the quenching step to cause fouling which is determined by measuring a tendency of the quench oil to precipitate polymeric species. Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), the Examiner rejects: claim 1 over Grenoble et al. (US 5,215,649, issued June 1, 1993) in view of Holland (US 2.608,527, issued Aug. 26, 1952); claim 9 over Grenoble in view of Manek et al. (US 5,985,940, issued Nov. 16, 1999); and remaining claims 3–8 and 10–20 over the Grenoble/Holland or the Grenoble/Manek combinations alone or with additional prior art. Appeal 2013-001818 Application 12/024,251 3 Appellants "elect to argue only the rejection[s] of Claim[s] 1 and 9 on the basis that if these claims are not obvious, it follows then that dependent claims also are not obvious" (Br. 8). As a consequence, the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall with their parent independent claims 1 and 9. We sustain the above rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Action and in the Answer with the following comments added for emphasis. Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that "one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to employ a reference while leaving out a critical component, namely the solids in Holland and the hydrogen donor diluents in Grenoble" (id. at 10). As for claim 9, Appellants argue that "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to employ Grenoble without its critical element of the hydrogen donor diluents" (id. at 11). In response to these arguments, the Examiner points out that the rejections do not propose removing the solids of Holland or the hydrogen donor diluents of Grenoble and that claims 1 and 9 do not require any such removal (Ans. 7–9). Appellants do not address, and therefore do not identify error in, the Examiner's response (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed). It follows that Appellants' arguments fail to reveal error in the rejections before us. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. Appeal 2013-001818 Application 12/024,251 4 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation