Ex Parte Shaffer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 14, 201312179368 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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. 12/179,368 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation