Ex Parte Shaffer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2013

12179368 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2013)

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.
12/179,368 07/24/2008 Timothy D. Shaffer 2007EM233A 8013
23455 7590 01/15/2013
EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY
5200 BAYWAY DRIVE
P.O. BOX 2149
BAYTOWN, TX 77522-2149
EXAMINER
FINK, BRIEANN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1763
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2013 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 TIMOTHY D. SHAFFER, PAMELA J. WRIGHT,
J. DAVIS DEBORAH, and MICHAEL F. MCDONALD
____________________

Appeal 2011-010546
Application 12/179,368
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Milner1 in view of Fouarge2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Milner et al., US 2006/0084770 A1, pub. Apr. 20, 2006.
2 Fouarge et al., EP 1 564 221 A1, pub. Aug. 17, 2005.
Appeal 2011-010546
Application 12/179,368

2
For the reasons articulated by the Examiner in the Answer, we
AFFIRM. We add the following for emphasis.
The claims are directed to method for reducing polymer buildup on
the interior walls of a polymerization reactor by polishing a majority of the
polymerization contact surfaces to a particular level (Spec. ¶¶ [0002] and
[0011]; Claim 11), and a method of producing an isoolefin polymer in such a
smooth surface reactor (Claim 1).
There is no dispute that, as found by the Examiner, Milner teaches
producing an isoolefin polymer by the method of claim 1, but fails to
mention the smoothness or roughness of the reactor walls, and Fouarge
teaches that polishing walls to the level claimed will prevent fouling in
polyolefin polymerization reactors (compare Ans. 3 with Br. 9-11; Reply Br.
5). Appellants’ arguments instead raise the issue of whether the Examiner
reversibly erred in finding a reason to combine the polishing of Fouarge with
the polymerization process of Milner to reduce fouling in Milner’s process
(compare Ans. 4 with Br. 9-11).
The polymerization processes of Milner and Fouarge both produce a
polymer slurry prone to fouling the interior walls of the reactor (Milner, ¶
[0006]; Fouarge, ¶ [0011]). Milner teaches using a hydrocarbon diluent to
make the slurry less prone to fouling (Milner, ¶¶ [0041] and [0047]).
Fouarge indicates that it was known in the art that fouling was still a
problem when using a hydrocarbon diluent in an olefin polymerization
process (Fouarge, ¶ [0002]). This fouling is caused by a combination of
fines and the buildup of electrostatic charge in the powder (Fouarge, ¶
[0003]).
Appeal 2011-010546
Application 12/179,368

3
Fouarge discloses that attempts were made to avoid this fouling by
adding an antifouling agent that makes the diluent more conductive, but
there was a problem with those agents “particularly in relation to
polymerisation processes using chromium-type catalysts or Ziegler-Natta
type catalysts because of loss of activity of the catalyst due to the presence
of the anti-fouling agent.” (Fouarge, ¶ [0008]).
Fouarge does not confine the use of polished reactors to processes
using chromium-type and Ziegler-Natta catalysts; Fouarge merely discloses
that there is a problem with using antifouling agents with such catalysts
(Fouarge, ¶ [0008]). There are also problems with toxicity with such agents
(Fouarge, ¶ [0009]).
As found by the Examiner, it is the polymer product that causes
fouling, not the catalyst (Ans. 7). Fouarge provides evidence that it was
known in the art to polish the reactor wall to reduce fouling caused by the
polymer fines and electrostatic charge in the polymer powder. Appellants
have not convinced us that there is a difference in catalyst that would have
dissuaded the ordinary artisan from polishing the walls of Milner’s reactor to
reduce fouling. Nor can we agree with Appellants that Milner solved the
fouling problem with the use of hydrocarbon diluent. Fouarge provides
evidence that a fouling problem remained even after a hydrocarbon diluent
was added.
We add that Fouarge alone appears to render the method of claim 11
obvious. Claim 11 is not limited to the specific steps of polymerizing
isoolefins recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2011-010546
Application 12/179,368

4
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

cam