Ex Parte Schreuder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

13127721 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/127,721 08/04/2011 Sandra Schreuder
23632 7590 09/29/2016
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.
TS 2271 USA P 4477
EXAMINER
FIORITO, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 SANDRA SCHREUDER
Appeal2015-005729
Application 13/127,721
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection
of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The claims on appeal are directed to a method of treating a first off-gas
stream in a gasification process to provide an ammonium-rich stream (claims 1-8)
and an apparatus for treating the first off-gas stream (claims 9-11).
Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief
dated October 22, 2014 ("Br."). The limitation at issue is italicized.
Appeal2015-005729
Application 13/127,721
Br. 9.
1. A method of treating a first off-gas stream in a gasification
process to provide an ammonium-rich stream, comprising at least the
steps of:
(a) providing a first off-gas stream comprising HCN, NHJ,
H2S, and C02 by separating a slurry bleed stream comprising
particulate solids, HCN, NH3, H2S, and C02 in a sour slurry stripper
to provide the first off-gas stream and a stripped slurry stream
comprising particulate solids;
(b) passing the first off-gas stream to a hydrolysis zone
operating at a pressure in the range of 1.5 to 10 bara to hydrolyse the
HCN to provide a second off-gas stream comprising NH3, H2S, and
C02; and
( c) scrubbing the second off-gas stream with an aqueous
acidic stream in an ammonia scrubber to provide a third off-gas
stream comprising H2S and C02 and an ammonium-rich aqueous
stream.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Potter1 in view of Van Grinsven et al. 2 and Koveal et al.;3
(2) claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Potter in
view of Van Grinsven; and
(3) claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Potter in
view of Van Grinsven and Koveal, and further in view of Meessen et al. 4
1 EP 0 272 748 Bl, published June 29, 1988 ("Potter").
2 WO 2004/105922 Al, published December 9, 2004 ("Van Grinsven").
3 US 6,107,353 A, issued August 22, 2000 ("Koveal").
4 US 2008/0128291 Al, published June 5, 2008 ("Meessen").
2
Appeal2015-005729
Application 13/127,721
B. DISCUSSION
1. Claims 1-8
The Examiner finds Potter teaches a method of treating a raw synthesis gas
including particulates in the form of flyash, CO, HCN, NH3, H2S, and C02. Ans.
2. 5 The Examiner finds Potter separates a slurry bleed stream comprising flyash
with HCN, NH3, and COS or H2S, HN3, and C02 in sour slurry stripper 23 to
provide first off-gas stream 25. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds Potter does not
expressly state that HCN is included with H2S, HN3, and C02 in a first off-gas
stream as recited in claim 1. Ans. 2. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Potter
teaches that the gases coming off stripper 23, which may be either HCN, NH3, and
COS or H2S, NH3 and C02, "are all impurity gases that are 'suitably conveyed for
chemical and/or biological treatment."' Ans. 3.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art:
[T]o include HCN in the off gas containing H2S, NH3, and C02. The
motivation to do so would have included at least a desire to remove
impurities in the gas phase .... Moreover, the combination of HCN
with H2S, NH3, and C02 would have been a combination of prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
according to KSR exemplary rational [sic, rationale] (a). See MPEP
2143. In this case, it was known for the off gas of the stripper to
include HCN, NH3, and COS or H2S, NH3, and C02[. A]ny
combination of these gases, including HCN with NH3, H2S, and C02,
coming off of the stripper would have led to the same predictable
result of a combination of impurities that required subsequent
chemical or biological treatment ....
Ans. 3 (emphasis added).
5 Examiner's Answer dated March 10, 2015.
3
Appeal2015-005729
Application 13/127,721
The Appellant argues that the Examiner's motivation for making the
proposed modification (i.e., "to remove impurities") is not sufficient to support a
prima facie case of obviousness because "the modification proposed [by the
Examiner] is the addition of an impurity, HCN, to the first off gas stream." Br. 6
(emphasis added). The Appellant argues that:
The stream of Potter that the Examiner equates to Applicants' claimed
first off-gas stream was previously treated with ammonium
polysulfide to convert HCN to ammonium thiocyanate (in scrubber
17). See Potter, col. 10, lines 25--40. The stream was then treated to
remove the ammonium thiocyanate (and/or convert any remaining
ammonium thiocyanate to NH3, C02, and H2S (in hydrolysis zone
21)) before it was sent to the stripper. See Potter, col. 10, lines 40-50.
It would not be obvious to simply add HCN to this stream after Potter
specifically spends several steps to remove HCN from it.
Br. 5---6.
The Appellant also argues that the stream comprising HCN
does not comprise H2S or C02 [as recited in step (a) of claim 1], but
instead relates to a separate embodiment of Potter . ... If the
Examiner is now relying on this embodiment of Potter and equating
this stream to Applicants' claimed off gas stream, then the [Examiner]
has failed to provide any motivation to modify this stream of Potter to
include H2S or C02 in this different stream.
Br. 6---7.
The Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error. Potter
describes two embodiments of stripping impurity gases (i.e., "stripping produces,
in one case, a gas stream containing HCN, NH3, and COS, [and] in the polysulfide
case, NH3, C02, and H2S"). Potter, col. 7, 11. 41--43.
In the first embodiment, a scrubbing solution in scrubber 17 contains
ammonium polysulphide which converts HCN and absorbs NH3 and COS present
in the gaseous stream. Scrubbing water, containing dissolved gases, ammonium
4
Appeal2015-005729
Application 13/127,721
thiocyanate, and flyslag and soot, is removed from the lower portion of scrubber 17
and is sent to hydrolysis zone 21 where the ammonium thiocyanate hydrolyzes to
NH3, C02 and H2S. The gas-liquid mixture is forwarded to stripping zone 23
where the gases (i.e., NH3, C02 and H2S) are stripped from solution and leave
stripping zone 23 via line 25. Potter, col. 10, 11. 31-58.
In the second embodiment disclosed in Potter, water is the aqueous
scrubbing liquid in scrubber 17. In this embodiment, hydrolysis zone 21 may be
omitted and HCN, NH3, and COS are removed from stripper 23 via line 25, rather
than converted or absorbed in scrubber 17 as in the first embodiment of Potter.
Potter, col. 11, 11. 6-9.
It is unclear on this record why, absent the Appellant's disclosure, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined HCN with NH3, C02, and H2S, in
Potter's first embodiment, to provide a first off-gas stream as claimed, where HCN
is previously converted in scrubber 17. In the words of the Appellant, "[i]t would
not be obvious to simply add HCN to this stream after Potter specifically spends
several steps to remove HCN from it." Br. 6.
We recognize that "[ t ]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). However, in
this case, the Examiner has failed to show, in the first instance, that combining the
two embodiments disclosed in Potter, which include different scrubbing liquids,
would have yielded predictable results and that those results would have been a
"first off-gas stream comprising HCN, NH3, H2S, and C02" as recited in claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, the § 103 (a) rejection of independent claim 1
and dependent claims 3, 4, and 6-8 is not sustained. The Examiner does not rely
5
Appeal2015-005729
Application 13/127,721
on Meessen to cure the deficiencies in the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, identified
above. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 5 is not sustained.
2. Claims 9-11
The Examiner finds Potter discloses an apparatus for treating a first off-gas
stream in a gasification plant comprising a sour slurry stripper having a first inlet
for a slurry bleed stream, a first outlet for a first off-gas stream, and a second outlet
for a stripped slurry stream as recited in claim 9. 6 Ans. 6.
The Appellant argues that "the combination of Potter, Van Grinsven, and
Koveal fails to disclose or teach all of the limitations in independent claim 1 [and
f]or at least the same reasons, the combination of Potter and Van Grinsven fails to
teach all of the limitations in independent claim 9."7 Br. 7.
The Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Claim 9, in
contrast to claim 1, recites an apparatus. The Appellant has failed to show that the
specific mixture of solids and gases that enters the first inlet of the stripper or the
specific mixture of gases that exits the first outlet of the stripper structurally
distinguishes the claimed sour slurry stripper from the sour slurry stripper
disclosed in Potter. See In re Michlin, 256 F .2d 317, 320 (CCP A 1958) ("It is well
settled that patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural
6 The Examiner finds Van Grinsven teaches a hydrolysis zone and an ammonia
scrubber as recited in claim 9. Ans. 7.
7 In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner relies on Koveal to teach hydrolysis of
HCN at a pressure of about 1-100 bar, which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to
10 bara. Ans. 4. The apparatus recited in claim 9 includes a hydrolysis zone that
operates "[at] a pressure in the range of 1.5 to 10 bara." Br. 12. However, Koveal
is not included in the rejection of claim 9 because the Examiner concludes that "the
operating pressure of the apparatus is an intended use of the apparatus and is not
given patentable weight." Ans. 7.
6
Appeal2015-005729
Application 13/127,721
limitations and not upon statements of function."). Therefore, the§ 103(a)
rejection of claim 9 is sustained.
The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of claim 10 or claim 11. Br. 7. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of
claims 10 and 11 is also sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Potter in view of Van Grinsven and Koveal is
reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Potter in view of Van Grinsven and Koveal, and further in
view of Meessen is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Potter in view of Van Grinsven 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7