Ex Parte Rieder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12293398 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/293,398 0312612009 Marc Alexander Rieder
23632 7590 09/28/2016
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.
TS8641 US 1345
EXAMINER
CRENSHAW, HENRY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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 MARC ALEXANDER RIEDER, DA YID BERTIL RUNBALK,
and ALEXANDER EMANUEL MARIA STRA VER
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Marc Alexander Rieder et al. (Appellants) 1 seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Action,
dated April 30, 2012 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Shell Oil Company. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "a method for the
re gasification of liquefied natural gas (LNG)." Spec. 1, 11. 1-2. Claims 1
and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A method for the re gasification of liquefied natural
gas, the method at least comprising the steps of:
a) removing liquefied natural gas from a storage tank using
a first pump unit;
b) passing the removed liquefied natural gas to and feeding
it into a second pump unit at an inlet pressure;
c) increasing the pressure of the liquefied natural gas in the
second pump unit thereby obtaining pressurized liquefied natural
gas;
d) vaporizing the pressurized liquefied natural gas thereby
obtaining gaseous natural gas;
wherein the second pump unit discharges the pressurized
liquefied natural gas at a preselected pressure value, regardless
of the inlet pressure at the second pump unit.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence in the Final Action:
Matsumura
Ward
Harwood
us 5,678,411
US 2005/0126220 Al
WO 2005/059459 Al
Oct. 21, 1997
June 16, 2005
June 30, 2005
"Variable Speed Pumping, A Guide to Successful Applications,
Executive Summary" DOE/G0-102004-1913 (May, 2004) (hereinafter
"DOE/GO").
2
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
REJECTIONS
The Final Action contained the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 9 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Harwood, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harwood and DOE/GO.
2. Claims 2, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Harwood, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and DOE/GO.
3. Claims 4-8 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Harwood, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and Matsumura.
4. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harwood,
as applied to claim 9, and Ward.
5. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harwood
and DOE/GO, as applied to claim 2, and Matsumura.
6. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harwood,
as applied to claims 1 and 3, and Matsumura.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection
Claims 1 and 9-Anticipation by Harwood
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 9 as a group. Appeal Br.
4-6. We select claim 1 as representative for the group, and claim 9 stands or
falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants raise additional
arguments for dependent claims 3 and 11, which we address infra.
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "wherein the second pump unit
discharges the pressurized liquefied natural gas at a pre-selected pressure
3
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
value, regardless of the inlet pressure at the second pump unit." Appeal Br.
10 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that Harwood's second pump unit 3
meets this limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner explained:
Harwood states that "the pump 3 [the second pump] increases the
pressure typically to around 9-13 barg". It does not state that the
pressure is increased fu!_ any amount. Further the pressures at the
inlet to the pump can be expected to vary with the pressure within
the cryo tank [ 1]. Consequently, even though Harwood does not
expressly state that the outlet pressure is independent of the inlet
pressure, it is clear that a specific outlet pressure is desired
notwithstanding the inlet pressure.
Final Act. 14 (citing Harwood 5, 11. 31-32).
We agree with the Examiner's reading of Harwood. As noted by the
Examiner, the language in Harwood states that pump 3 "increases the
pressure typically to around 9 to 13 barg." Harwood 5, 11. 31-32 (emphasis
added). Later in Harwood, the disclosure states that compressor 8 increases
the pressure "typically by from 2 to 5 bar." Id. at 6, 1. 3 (emphasis added).
As such, Harwood distinguishes between components that increase the
pressure of the LNG to a pre-selected pressure with components that
increase the pressure by a pre-selected amount. We agree with the Examiner
that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand the cited passage
of Harwood to disclose a second pump unit that increases the pressure of the
LNG to a pre-selected pressure value.
Appellants argue that this passage of Harwood, even if it discloses
increasing pressure to a pre-selected pressure value, "is not tantamount to a
teaching of' a pre-selected pressure value, regardless of the inlet pressure."'
4
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
Appeal Br. 8. We find the Examiner's reasoning, quoted above from the
Final Action, to be persuasive. In particular, Appellants do not persuade us
of error in the Examiner's finding that "the pressures at the inlet to the pump
can be expected to vary with the pressure within the cryo tank." Final Act.
14. Rather than contesting this finding, Appellants assert that "the
variability in the inlet pressures of pump 3 of Harwood would correspond to
an equal variability in outlet pressures." Reply Br. 2. This argument,
however, is based on a reading of Harwood as disclosing that pump 3
"provide[ s] a constant pressure boost of 'x barg' above the variable inlet
pressure;" a reading that we discounted supra. See id.
Appellants further argue that Harwood's disclosure that "pump 3 may
be omitted if the LNG feed stream is at a sufficient high initial pressure," is
"evidence that the pump 3 of Harwood does not provide LNG 'at a pre-
selected pressure value, regardless of the inler pressure .... Reply Br. 3
(quoting Harwood 6, 11. 26-27). We disagree with Appellants' reading of
this passage of Harwood. We understand this passage of Harwood to
disclose that if pump 2 is able to discharge the LNG at the desired pre-
selected pressure value, then pump 3 is not necessary. This alternative
embodiment, which omits second pump unit 3, does not demonstrate that
pump 3 does not provide LNG at a pre-selected pressure value, regardless of
the inlet pressure.
For these reasons, we find the Examiner's findings as to the disclosure
of Harwood are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. As such, we
5
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claim 9 which falls with claim 1, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Harwood.
Claims 1and9- Unpatentability over Harwood and DOE/GO
The Examiner further found that to the extent Harwood does not
disclose by a preponderance of the evidence the above-recited limitation of
claim 1,
this limitation is well known in the art as illustrated by
applicant's admitted prior art on page 3 regarding variable speed
pumps, and DOE/GO, which teaches on pages 1 and 7 that the
most efficient means of controlling pumps is speed control; using
variable speed can eliminate the need for ancillary components;
and that the outlet pressure is a function of the speed, which can
be varied as desired.
Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner determined that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led "to provide Harwood with a variable speed pump, in
order to achieve the benefit of increased efficiency and reduction in capital
costs." Id. at 4. For sake of completeness, we review this alternative ground
of rejection of claim 1, and claim 9 grouped therewith.
Appellants argue that DOE/GO does not teach "discharge at a pre-
selected pressure value 'regardless of the inlet pressure"' as called for in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants' Specification describes that a "'normal
pump' ... discharges a stream having a pressure that is a predefined level
above its inlet pressure." Spec. 3, 11. 16-21. The Specification describes
that in a preferred embodiment, the second pump unit of the invention
comprises a conventional variable-speed drive (VSD) motor. Spec. 3, 11. 24-
31; see also Reply Br. 3 (Appellants asserting that the Specification provides
6
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
that "a variable speed pump allows for changes to pressure or flow rates
without needing to change the pump unit" (citing Spec. 6, 11. 20-23)). The
Examiner referred to the disclosure on page 3 of Appellants' Specification
that "a VSD motor is known" as "applicant's admitted prior art." Final
Act. 3. DOE/GO further teaches that "[i]n applications that require flow or
pressure control ... the most energy-efficient option for control is an
electronic [variable speed drive]." DOE/GO 8. DOE/GO discloses that
"[t]his electronic control can match the motor speed to the load requirement
[which] eliminates a number of costly and energy inefficient ancillaries,
such as throttle valves or bypass systems." Id. Based on these disclosures,
we agree with the Examiner's finding that variable-speed drive motors that
provide a pre-selected outlet pressure regardless of inlet pressure were
known at the time of the invention.
As to the reason to use the variable speed drive disclosed in DOE/GO
for the pump 3 of Harwood, the Examiner found that DOE/GO teaches many
reasons to use a variable speed drive motor in pumping applications with
variable-duty requirements. Id. at 3--4. For the reasons set forth above, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Harwood discloses a system
including a second pump unit 3 having such variable-duty requirements,
e.g., a variable inlet pressure due to variations in the pressure within storage
tank 1 and a desired pre-selected outlet pressure value. Thus, in Harwood, if
the inlet pressure to pump 3 is close to the pre-selected outlet pressure value,
then the power required to attain the pre-selected outlet pressure is less than
7
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
in situations in which the inlet pressure to pump 3 is far less that the pre-
selected outlet pressure value.
As noted by the Examiner, DOE/GO discloses that the advantages of
using a variable speed drive for pumping applications include energy
efficiency and cost savings by elimination of the need for ancillary
components. Final Act. 3. In particular, DOE/GO teaches that "[i]n
applications that require flow or pressure control, ... the most energy-
efficient option for control is an electronic [variable speed drive]."
DOE/GO 8. DOE/GO discloses that "[t]his electronic control can match the
motor speed to the load requirement [which] eliminates a number of costly
and energy inefficient ancillaries, such as throttle valves or bypass systems."
Id.; see also id. at 3 (disclosing that variable speed control methods achieve
an energy cost savings by reducing the power to drive the pump during
periods of reduced demand). To the extent one were to find Harwood silent
as to the type of pump used for second pump unit 3, we find ample teachings
in DOE/GO that would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to use a
variable speed drive for pump 3. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007) ("if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill"). The use of the variable speed
drive for the pump 3 in Harwood to achieve Harwood's pre-selected outlet
pressure value, by varying the speed of the motor based on the load
requirements, dictated at least in part by the inlet pressure, is nothing more
8
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
than the predictable use of the variable speed drive according to its
established function. Id.
For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellants appear to argue that
the non-obviousness of the claimed method might lie in the discovery of
inlet pressure variance. See Reply Br. 6 (arguing, inter alia, that "there is no
indication in the references that a problem with inlet pressure variance was
recognized"). The Examiner made a finding that "the pressures at the inlet
to the pump can be expected to vary with the pressure within the cryo tank."
Final Act. 14. As noted supra, Appellants do not directly contest this
finding, which is based on the general principle that the conditions under
which the LNG will be stored in storage tank 1 will inevitably vary. Further,
Appellants have not demonstrated persuasively that they were the first to
recognize that variations in the inlet pressure of the second pump unit exist,
or that such a recognition would not have been a matter of general
knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claim 9
which falls with claim 1, as unpatentable over Harwood and DOE/GO.
Dependent claims 3 and 11
Appellants argue claims 3 and 11 as a group. Appeal Br. 6-7. We
select claim 3 as the representative claim, and claim 11 stands or falls with
claim 3. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37( c )(1 )(iv). Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and
recites "wherein the second pump unit does not comprise a pressure control
valve." Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that DOE/GO
teaches that use of variable speed drives eliminates the need for use of
9
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
bypass lines and valves. Final Act. 4. The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to use a variable speed pump with no pressure
control valve for the second pump unit 3 of Harwood "to achieve the benefit
of increased efficiency and because eliminating the [pressure control] valve
can decrease capital expenditures." Id.
Appellants contend DOE/GO teaches away from omission of a
pressure control valve because it teaches that "when changes to flow rate are
desired while hold the pressure constant, a pressure-regulating valve is
used." Appeal Br. 6 (citing DOE/GO 6). We disagree with Appellants that
this disclosure in DOE/GO amounts to a teaching away of the claimed
subject matter. In particular, the cited passage in DOE/GO teaches that "[t]o
control flow in a [positive displacement] pump, the speed needs to be
changed or some of the flow has to be diverted." DOE/GO 6. DOE/GO
teaches that to make some small flow rate changes while holding the
pressure constant, a pressure regulating valve is used. Id. DOE/GO also
teaches, however, that "the use of such a valve to spill large volumes of
liquid will be very inefficient, with the loss of energy manifesting as heat
and noise." Id. DOE/GO discloses that a variable speed drive "is the
preferred option for an application where the flow needs to vary on a regular
basis" and that "[t]his is the most efficient method of flow control." Id. As
such, rather than criticizing or discrediting the use of a second pump unit
that "does not comprise a pressure control valve," DOE/GO suggests such a
pump unit. For these reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error in the
10
Appeal2013-006587
Application 12/293,398
rejection of claims 3 and 11. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 3
and 11.
Second through Sixth Grounds of Rejection
Appellants assert that the dependent claims subject to the remaining
grounds of rejection, i.e., claims 2, 4-8, 10, and 12-20, are patentable for at
least the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 are patentable over Harwood and
DOE/GO. Appeal Br. 7-8. For the reasons provided above, we find
Appellants' arguments as to claims 1 and 9 do not demonstrate error in the
Examiner's rejection. As such, we likewise sustain the remaining grounds
of rejection of claims 2, 4-8, 10, and 12-20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11