Ex Parte Rothaemel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12089823 (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.
12/089,823 09/08/2008 Martin Rothaemel 123.0005USWO 6879
57557 7590 03/01/2017
PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C.
Suite 900
121 South 8th Street
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2841
EXAMINER
PREGLER, SHARON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
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):
docketing@pdsdlaw.com
kds@pdsdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN ROTHAEMEL,
HENNING BUCHOLD, HARALD KOMPEL,
ANDREAS GLASMACHER,
and ANDREAS OCHS
Appeal 2015-002414
Application 12/089,823
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—15 and 18—21. A hearing was held on February
14, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief dated June 18, 2014 (“Br.”). The limitations at issue are
italicized.
Appeal 2015-002414
Application 12/089,823
1. A process for producing C2-C4 olefins from an educt mixture
containing steam and oxygenates, in which the educt mixture is
reacted in at least one reactor on a catalyst to obtain a reaction mixture
comprising low-molecular olefins and gasoline hydrocarbons, which
in a first separating device is separated into a mixture rich in C5-
olefins, a mixture rich in C5+ gasoline hydrocarbons, and an aqueous
phase,
wherein the mixture rich in C5+ gasoline hydrocarbons is
supplied to a second separating device, in which the aromatics
contained in the mixture are largely separated and are discharged as
aromatics stream,
wherein the second separating device is a membrane
separating device or includes a distillation column in which an
extracting agent is added, and
a residual stream largely free from aromatics is at least partly
recirculated to the at least one reactor as recycling stream.
App. Br. 16.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1—14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Graziani et al.1 in view of Kaeding2 and Hack et al.,3 and further in view of Tian et
al.;4 5 6and
(2) claims 1, 15, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Graziani in view of Kaeding and Hack, and further in view of Sweet et al.5,6
1 US 4,542,252, issued September 17, 1985 (“Graziani”).
2 US 4,849,573, issued July 18, 1989 (“Kaeding”).
3 US 2003/0139635 Al, published July 24, 2003 (“Hack”).
4 US 2003/0080028 Al, published May 1, 2003 (“Tian”).
5 US 5,643,442 A, issued July 1, 1997 (“Sweet”).
6 In both the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, claims 18—20 are
omitted from the statement of the rejection but are addressed in the body of the
rejection. See Final Office Action dated January 31, 2014, at 7; Examiner’s
Answer dated November 7, 2014 (“Ans.”), at 7. The Appellants recognize that
2
Appeal 2015-002414
Application 12/089,823
On appeal, the Appellants focus their arguments on claim 1 and do not
present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of claims 2—15
and 18—21. Thus, for purposes of this appeal, claims 2—14 and 21 stand or fall with
the patentability of claim 1 in rejection (1) and claims 15 and 18—20 stand or fall
with the patentability of claim 1 in rejection (2). 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (2014).
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
The Examiner finds Graziani discloses a process for producing light olefins
including C2-C4 olefins comprising the steps of: (1) providing a feedstream
comprising a mixture of oxygenates including methanol and/or dimethyl ether in a
reactor on a catalyst to obtain a mixture comprising light olefins and gasoline
hydrocarbons, (2) cooling the mixture, and (3) separating the mixture into three
phases. The Examiner finds the three phases are “a liquid hydrocarbon phase
(analogous to C5+ gasoline), an aqueous phase and a gaseous phase containing
most of the light olefins (analogous to C5- gasoline[)].” Ans. 2.
Graziani Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates the flow plan of a reactor
system for converting methanol to olefmic hydrocarbons.
claim 15 and claims 18—20 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Graziani in view of Kaeding and Hack, and further in view of Sweet. Br. 7. Thus,
the omission is harmless error, and the statement of the rejection has been
corrected to include claims 18—20.
3
Appeal 2015-002414
Application 12/089,823
Fig. I
Graziani Fig. 1 is a schematic flow plan of an
adiabatic multi-stage fixed bed reactor system for
converting methanol to olefmic hydrocarbons.
According to the process disclosed in Graziani, methanol feed is mixed with
an aqueous recycle stream which is rich in unreacted methanol from line 4 and a
dimethyl ether rich recycle stream containing unreacted dimethyl ether from line 6.
Graziani, col. 8,11. 34-40. Graziani discloses that a dimethyl ether-lean stream is
sent “to an olefins recovery system similar to that employed in conventional olefin
plants to recover ethylene, propylene, butenes, and a gasoline fraction through line
4
Appeal 2015-002414
Application 12/089,823
38.”7 Graziani, col. 9,11. 37-40. Based on the teachings in Graziani, the Examiner
finds “one having ordinary skill in the art would assume that aromatics are not
preferred for recycling to the oxygenate reactor.” Ans. 13.
The Examiner finds Graziani does not “specifically disclose aromatics
separation from the gasoline stock.” Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner turns to Hack.
Ans. 3^4. Hack Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates a flow diagram of a reactor
system for producing propylene from methanol.
Fig.1
Hack Fig. 1 is a flow diagram of the disclosed process.
Hack discloses:
7 The Examiner relies on Kaeding “for evidencary [sic, evidentiary] support that
aromatics are common by products in an oxygenate to olefin reaction.” Ans. 11.
5
Appeal 2015-002414
Application 12/089,823
The bottom product (mostly C4+ hydrocarbons) leaving column (24)
via line (26) is recirculated via line (5). . . . Excesses are removed
through lines (4a) and (5a).
The liquid mixture of line (21) flows into the third column (28),
from which a light C5+ fraction is separated and is recirculated via line
(29) and through line (5). The heavy constituents, usually petroleum
hydrocarbons, are withdrawn through line (30) and are removed from
the process.
Hack 1116-17.
In Example 1, Hack discloses that “[tjhrough line (29), 80% of the
convertible C5 to C8 olefins are withdrawn, and naphtha is obtained in line (30).”
Hack 124. Based on the disclosure in paragraph 24 of Hack, the Examiner finds
the stream through line (29) comprises mostly olefins and has generally low
aromatic content whereas the stream through line (30) contains the bulk of the
aromatics (i.e., naphtha). Ans. 12. The Appellants do not direct us to any error in
the Examiner’s findings.8
The Examiner concludes:
In view of [the] Hack disclosure, it would have been obvious to
one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the
integrated process of Graziani and Kaeding by recycling the light C5+
fraction to the reactor for an enhanced production of light olefins.
Ans. 4.
The Examiner also finds Hack does not disclose that distillation column
(28), which corresponds to the claimed second separating device, is either a
8 At the hearing, the Appellants disputed the Examiner’s finding that recycle
stream through line (29) comprises 80% Cs-Cg olefins, and thus comprises no more
than 20% aromatic compounds. See Ans. 9 (citing Hack 124). However, the
Examiner’s finding that the stream through line (30) contains the bulk of the
aromatics remains undisputed on this record.
6
Appeal 2015-002414
Application 12/089,823
distillation column in which an extracting agent is added or a membrane separating
device as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4, 6.
The Examiner finds Tian discloses an extractive distillation column for
separating aromatics from hydrocarbon mixtures. Ans. 4, 6. The Examiner also
finds Sweet removes aromatics by a membrane separation device. Ans. 6, 12. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to replace distillation column (28) of Hack with Tian’s distillation column or
Sweet’s membrane separator. Ans. 4, 6.
The Appellants argue:
Graziani discharges the complete C5+ stream from the process,
whereas the present invention teaches to remove the aromatics from
said stream and to recycle the remaining aliphatic compounds to the
reactor, in which they at least partly decompose and react to
additional educts.
Br. 10 (emphasis omitted); see also Br. 9 (arguing that “[a] residual stream from
[the] second separation step, which is largely free from aromatics, is at least partly
recirculated to the reactor as a recycling stream” in the present invention (emphasis
added)).
The Appellants recognize that Hack teaches recycling C5+ hydrocarbons via
line (29). However, the Appellants argue that “[t]he stream containing C5+
hydrocarbons will contain both aromatic and aliphatic compounds, without
removing of aromatic compounds and is thus different from the recycling stream
described by the present invention.” Br. 12.
The Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Claim 1
recites “a residual stream largely free from aromatics is at least partly recirculated
to the at least one reactor as recycling stream.” Br. 16 (emphasis added). The
Appellants do not define the phrase “largely free from aromatics” in the
7
Appeal 2015-002414
Application 12/089,823
Specification.9 We note that claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites that “the
amount of aromatics in the recycling stream recirculated to the first reactor is less
than 10 wt-%.” Br. 16. Based on the doctrine of claim differentiation, we interpret
“a residual stream largely free from aromatics” to include an amount of aromatics
equal to or greater than 10 weight percent. Hack expressly discloses that aromatics
(i.e., naphtha) are obtained in line (30). Hack 124. Therefore, it is reasonable to
find that the olefin stream in line (29) of Hack is largely free from aromatics as
recited in claim 1.
Moreover, claim 1 does not recite that the residual stream is discharged from
the second separating device. Thus, the aqueous recycle stream rich in unreacted
methanol and the dimethyl ether rich recycle stream in lines 4 and 34/6,
respectively, in Graziani are both residual streams within the scope of claim 1. See
Ans. 9 (“Graziani discloses that recycling of reactants are practiced (See lines 4
and 34 of Figure 1).”).
As for second separating device recited in claim 1, the Appellants recognize
that Tian discloses a process for separating aromatics by extractive distillation.
However, the Appellants argue that “the invention of Tian is suitable for the
extractive distillation of hydrocarbons, ‘in which the aromatic content [is] 15 to 99
wt%.’” Br. 13. Similarly, the Appellants argue that “the separation methods
disclosed by Sweet require an aromatic content of at least 15 wt %.” Br. 14.
Referring to Table III of Kaeding, the Appellants argue that the aromatic content is
too low to apply any of the separation methods disclosed by Tian or Sweet. Br. 13,
14.
9 The Appellants also do not define the phrase “substantially free from aromatics”
recited in claims 15 and 21.
8
Appeal 2015-002414
Application 12/089,823
Significantly, the Appellants’ arguments do not address the rejection on
appeal. In the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, the Examiner replaces distillation
column (28) of Hack with either the distillation column of Tian or the membrane
separating device of Sweet. The Appellants have failed to show that the aromatic
content in the liquid mixture through line (21) of Hack, which flows into column
(28), would have been expected to be lower than 15 weight percent. Thus, the
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Finally, the Appellants argue that the present invention produces unexpected
results (i.e., an increase of product yield of light olefins is obtained if aromatics are
separated before remaining hydrocarbons are recycled to reactor). Br. 9. The
Appellants, however, do not direct us to any evidence demonstrating that the
results obtained by the claimed process would have been unexpected. See In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (unexpected results must be
established by factual evidence; mere argument does not suffice).
For the reasons set forth above, the § 103(a) rejections on appeal are
sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
9