Ex Parte Routier et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 18, 201312097267 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/097,267 06/13/2008 Arold Marcel Albert Routier TS1418US 9460 23632 7590 09/18/2013 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER ZIMMER, ANTHONY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1736 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AROLD M.A. ROUTIER, FRANCISCUS J.M. SCHRAUWEN, and GERARDUS P. NIESEN ____________ Appeal 2012-008061 Application 12/097,267 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-008061 Application 12/097,267 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the final rejections of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention relates to a catalyst body comprising a Fischer- Tropsch catalyst or catalyst precursor with a porous body, which is suitable for use in a slurry reactor. App. Br. 2. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites: 1. A catalyst body comprising a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst or catalyst precursor and a porous body suitable for use in a slurry reactor, said porous body being between 1-50 mm in size, the catalyst body having an internal voidage between 50-95%. REJECTIONS The following grounds of rejection are before us on appeal:2 Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that Applicants regard as the invention. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arcuri (US 6,262,131 B1, issued July 17, 2001). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arcuri in view of Calis (US 2005/0228059 A1, published Oct. 13, 2005). 1 The real party in interest is listed as Shell Oil Company. App. Br. 2. 2 The objection to claim 6 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) as being of improper dependent form has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 4. Appeal 2012-008061 Application 12/097,267 3 Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arcuri in view of Hoek (US 2005/0130837 A1, published June 16, 2005). ISSUES Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the recitation that the porous body is “suitable for use in a slurry reactor” renders claims 1-8 indefinite? Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the teachings in Arcuri would have rendered claim 1 obvious? ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1-8 as indefinite The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection are located on pages 5 and 7-8 of the Answer. The Examiner concludes that it is not possible to ascertain the scope of the claims because “suitable for use in a slurry reactor” is not defined in the claims or the Specification. Ans. 5,7. According to the Examiner, the Specification “does not attribute any specific properties to the phrase or make it clear what properties would and what properties would not render a catalyst suitable for use in a slurry reactor”. Id. at 8. Appellants argue that catalysts that are suitable for use in a slurry reactor are described in the Specification. See Spec. 5:4-6:5 and 9:5-13. Appellants also assert that, “in view of those teachings, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the characteristics of a suitable catalyst.” App. Br. 3. The Examiner responds that the parts of the Specification cited by Appellants “[a]t best . . . describe preferred Appeal 2012-008061 Application 12/097,267 4 properties” and that “it is unclear whether or not the preferred properties would be required for the catalyst to be suitable for use in a slurry reactor.” Ans. 8. The Examiner has not established that the phrase “suitable for use in a slurry reactor” is indefinite from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. As an initial matter, there is no support in the Specification for the Examiner’s assertion that the catalyst properties disclosed on pages 5-6 and 9 of the Specification are “preferred properties.” Spec. 5:4-6:5 and 9:5-13. Furthermore, the Examiner has not provided any technical reasoning or evidence that shows that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand what makes a catalyst “suitable for use in a slurry reactor.” The Examiner’s unsupported assertions are not sufficient to make a prima facie case of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Because the Examiner failed to establish indefiniteness of the term “suitable for use in a slurry reactor,” we reverse the Examiner’s rejection based on § 112, second paragraph. The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-8 as unpatentable over Arcuri, the rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Arcuri and Calis, and the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Arcuri and Hoek The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Arcuri are located on pages 5-7 and 9-10 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Arcuri teaches a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst comprising a catalyst metal disposed on a porous catalyst body, where “[s]aid catalyst body has a void ratio greater than 0.6 . . . and a size of from 50 microns (0.05 mm) to more than a few inches (2 inches = 50.8 mm) with examples in this range.” Ans. 5. The Appeal 2012-008061 Application 12/097,267 5 Examiner concludes that the catalyst disclosed in Arcuri “has significantly overlapping ranges” with the claimed catalyst, rendering the claims prima facie obvious. Id. The Examiner also finds that due to the overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious that the Arcuri catalysts would also be suitable for use in a slurry reactor. Id. at 5-6. Appellants respond that “while there may be some overlap in the ranges of the parameters of the supports, the resulting catalyst bodies have entirely different characteristics” and that the “selection of the proper material, shape, size and internal voidage determine the final characteristics of the catalyst and determine their suitable uses.” App. Br. 3-4. Appellants further emphasize that Arcuri discloses stationary Fischer- Tropsch catalysts. Id. at 3. Appellants argue that the claimed invention is limited to catalyst bodies that are suitable for use in a slurry reactor. Id. Appellants further state that “[a] person of skill in the art seeking to develop a catalyst for use in a slurry reactor would not follow the teachings of Arcuri that are directed to a stationary catalyst.” App. Br. 4. The Examiner responds that there is no indication that the catalysts taught in Arcuri are not suitable for use in slurry reactors, despite its preference for stationary use. Ans. 9. Appellants’ arguments are not convincing. As found by the Examiner, Arcuri discloses a porous catalyst body with a size of from 50 microns (0.05 mm) to more than a few inches (2 inches=50.88 mm) and an internal voidage of greater than 60%. Id. at 5. Appellants’ claims recite a porous body “being between 1-50 mm in size” and “having an internal voidage between 50-95%.” Claim 1. We note that “[a] prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition Appeal 2012-008061 Application 12/097,267 6 overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (acknowledging that a claimed invention was rendered prima facie obvious by a prior art reference that disclosed a range (50-100 Angstroms) that overlapped the claimed range (100-600 Angstrom)); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (CCPA 1990) (a claimed invention was rendered obvious by a prior reference that disclosed a range (“about 1-5%” carbon monoxide) that abutted the claimed range (“more than 5% to about 25%” carbon monoxide)). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ unsupported contention that “[a] person of skill in the art seeking to develop a catalyst for use in a slurry reactor would not follow the teachings of Arcuri that are directed to a stationary catalyst.” App. Br. 4. Moreover, although Appellants assert that “there may be some overlap in ranges of the parameters of the supports, the resulting catalyst bodies have entirely different characteristics”, they do not point to any evidence supporting that assertion or explain the significance of these different characteristics, nor have they provided any evidence that the catalyst bodies disclosed in Arcuri are not suitable for use in a slurry reactor. Id. at 3. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Arcuri does indicate that the catalysts described therein can be used in slurry reactors: The structured catalyst stands in contrast to what is possible for slurry catalyst systems. In the slurry case, the loading is limited by the slurry viscosity, which becomes very high for high loadings of small catalyst particle sizes, typically less than 25 volume percent for 50 mm particles and more importantly less than 20 vol. % for 10 mm particles. When the concentration in the slurry is increased, you reach a point where the viscosity Appeal 2012-008061 Application 12/097,267 7 becomes very high and gas bubble size increases to the point where mass transfer limitations occurs [sic]. In contrast, the structured catalyst can be loaded into a reactor as full as physically possible and viscosity of the liquid matrix will not change—it is still liquid with a fairly low viscosity. Arcuri, col. 9, ll. 39-51. Appellants do not argue, and Arcuri does not teach, that the limited loading that accompanies the use of 10 mm and 50 mm size particles makes catalyst particles of that size unsuitable for use in a slurry reactor. Thus, as Appellants have not pointed out how the Examiner’s findings are in error, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 as being unpatentable over Arcuri. Because Appellants are relying on the same arguments to overcome the rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Arcuri in view of Calis (App. Br. 4) and claim 8 as being unpatentable over Arcuri in view of Hoek (id.), we also affirm the rejections of claim 5 and claim 8. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite; We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arcuri. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arcuri in view of Calis. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arcuri in view of Hoek. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2012-008061 Application 12/097,267 8 AFFIRMED bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation