12882412 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2015)

Ex Parte Sirdeshpande et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 12, 2015

12882412 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2015)

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. 12/882,412 09/15/2010 Avinash Sirdeshpande FN-0052 US NP1 2901 77003 7590 11/13/2015 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP 300 S. WACKER DRIVE SUITE 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2015 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 AVINASH SIRDESHPANDE and WILLIAM E. PRESTON ________________ Appeal 2013-010492 Application 12/882,4121 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–12 and 14–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim an integrated process for generating gaseous products and electric power. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An integrated process for generating a plurality of gaseous products from a carbonaceous feedstock, and generating electric power, the process comprising the steps of: Appeal 2013-010492 Application 12/882,412 2 (a) supplying to a hydromethanation reactor (1) a carbonaceous feedstock, (2) a hydromethanation catalyst, (3) a steam stream, (4) a feed gas stream and (5) optionally a first oxygen-rich gas stream; (b) reacting the carbonaceous feedstock in the hydromethanation reactor in the presence of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, steam, hydromethanation catalyst and optionally oxygen, at a temperature of from at least about 700°F to about 1500°F and pressure of from about 250 psig to about 800 psig, to produce a methane-enriched raw product stream comprising methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and heat energy, wherein the methane- enriched raw product stream comprises at least 50 mol% methane plus carbon dioxide based on the moles of methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the methane- enriched raw product stream; (c) withdrawing the methane-enriched raw product stream from the hydromethanation reactor; (d) introducing the methane-enriched raw product stream into a first heat exchanger unit to remove heat energy from the methane-enriched raw product stream; (e) sour shifting at least a predominant portion of the carbon monoxide in the methane-enriched raw product stream to produce a hydrogen-enriched raw product stream comprising hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and optionally carbon monoxide; (f) removing a substantial portion of the carbon dioxide and a substantial portion of the hydrogen sulfide from the hydrogen-enriched raw product stream to produce a sweetened gas stream comprising a substantial portion of the hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide (if present) from the hydrogen- enriched raw product stream; (g) optionally separating at least a portion of the hydrogen from the sweetened gas stream to produce (1) a hydrogen product stream and (2) a hydrogen-depleted sweetened gas stream comprising methane, carbon monoxide (if present in the sweetened gas stream) and optionally hydrogen; (h) optionally reacting carbon monoxide and hydrogen present in the sweetened gas stream (or the hydrogen-depleted Appeal 2013-010492 Application 12/882,412 3 sweetened gas stream if present) in a catalytic methanator to produce a methane-enriched sweetened gas stream; (i) if the methane-enriched sweetened gas stream is present, optionally splitting the methane-enriched sweetened gas stream into a methane product stream and a methane- enriched split gas stream; (j) splitting the sweetened gas stream (or the hydrogen- depleted sweetened gas stream if present, or the methane- enriched sweetened gas stream if present, or the methane- enriched split gas feed stream if present) into a recycle gas stream and a combustible gas feed stream; (k) supplying at least a predominant portion of the recycle gas stream and a second oxygen-rich gas stream to a partial oxidation reactor; (l) reacting the supplied recycle gas stream with oxygen in the partial oxidation reactor to generate heat energy and the feed gas stream, wherein the feed gas steam comprises carbon monoxide, hydrogen and steam; (m) supplying the combustible gas feed stream to a power generation block comprising a combustor; and (n) combusting the combustible gas feed in the combustor to generate electrical power, wherein the feed gas stream is passed through a second heat exchanger unit to remove heat energy prior to introduction into the hydromethanation reactor; the reaction in step (b) has a syngas demand; the amount of the recycle gas stream supplied to the partial oxidation reactor is at least sufficient to generate enough carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the feed gas stream to at least meet the syngas demand of the reaction in step (b ); the carbonaceous feedstock is loaded with a hydromethanation catalyst prior to introduction into the hydromethanation reactor; and the carbonaceous feedstock is loaded with an amount of an alkali metal hydromethanation catalyst sufficient to provide a ratio of alkali metal atoms to carbon atoms ranging from about 0.01 to about 0.10. The References Koh US 3,958,957 May 25, 1976 Eakman US 4,118,204 Oct. 3, 1978 Appeal 2013-010492 Application 12/882,412 4 Couche US 5,669,960 Sept. 23, 1997 Barnicki US 2006/0149423 A1 July 6, 2006 Rojey US 2009/0012188 A1 Jan. 8, 2009 The Rejections Claims 1–12 and 14–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Eakman in view of Koh, Couche, Barnicki and Rojey. The claims stand provisionally rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness- type double patenting as follows: 1) claims 1, 6–8, 10–12, 15, and 18 over claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 12–15 and 17–19 of copending Application No. 12/882,408 in view of Eakman and Rojey, 2) claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 16, and 18 over claims 1, 5–9, 17 and 18 of copending Application No. 12/778,548 (issued as Patent No. 8,728,182 on May 20, 2014) in view of Barnicki and Rojey, 3) claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 18 over claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–11 and 18 of copending Application No. 12/778,552 (issued as Patent No. 8,728,183 on May 20, 2014) in view of Eakman, Barnicki, and Rojey, 4) claims 1, 6, 7, 10–12, and 18 over claims 1, 7–11, 13–15, 18 and 19 of copending Application No. 12/851,864 in view of Barnicki and 5) claims 1, 6, 7, 9–12, 14–16 and 18 over claims 1, 6–14 and 20 of copending Application No. 12/882,417 in view of Barnicki. OPINION We affirm the rejections. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 9–13). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. Claims 2–12 and 14–18 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2011). Appeal 2013-010492 Application 12/882,412 5 Eakman discloses “a catalytic gasification process for producing an intermediate Btu gas carried out in the presence of a carbon-alkali metal catalyst” (col. 1, ll. 9–11). Eakman reacts a carbonaceous feed material with steam, hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the presence of the carbon-alkali metal catalyst to produce a raw product gas consisting essentially of methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and steam, withdraws the raw product gas from the reaction zone, removes acid gases from the raw product gas to produce a treated gas, withdraws a portion of the treated gas as an intermediate Btu product gas, contacts the remainder of the treated gas with steam in a steam reforming zone to react methane in the gas with steam to produce additional carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and passes the effluent from the reforming zone into the reaction zone (col. 3, ll. 4–23). Couche discloses that the most frequently used processes for producing hydrogen are steam reforming and partial oxidation of hydrocarbons in a gasifier to produce a synthesis gas (col. 1, ll. 12–15). “The H2 containing gas produced from such operations is usually subjected to a water-gas shift converter to convert CO and CO2 and H2O to more H2” (col. 1, ll. 15–18). Barnicki passes synthesis gas to a power producing zone during peak power demand and to a chemical producing zone during off-peak power demand and teaches that using natural gas as a source of energy for generating electric power was known in the art (¶¶ 5, 19–24). The Appellants point out that Eakman does not do a water-gas shift prior to removing acid gases and argue that because Eakman’s ultimate product is an intermediate BTU gas, Eakman would not have suggested using a water-gas shift to produce additional hydrogen (App. Br. 9–10). Appeal 2013-010492 Application 12/882,412 6 Eakman does not perform a water-gas shift to make more hydrogen because Eakman’s desired product is a methane-containing intermediate Btu gas (col. 8, ll. 63–67). However, as indicated by Couche, pure hydrogen was known to be a valuable product (col. 1, ll. 4–5, 12–19). Eakman and Couche would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to obtain that known valuable product by using the known water-gas shift (Couche, col. 1, ll. 15–18) to increase the amount of hydrogen in Eakman’s raw product gas and to use a known technique (Couche, col. 1, ll. 18–19) to purify hydrogen separated therefrom. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). The Appellants assert that Eakman uses steam reforming instead of partial oxidation for synthesis gas generation (App. Br. 10). In view of Couche’s disclosure that both steam reforming and partial oxidation were known in the art to be useful for synthesis gas generation (col. 1, ll. 12–15), one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have used either of them in Eakman’s process. See KSR, 550 U.S. 418. The Appellants argue that Eakman teaches away from recovering heat from the gas stream sent to the hydromethanation reactor (gasifier 32). (App. Br. 12). Eakman does not teach away from passing the steam reformer (71) effluent to the gasifier (32) without substantial cooling but, rather, merely discloses that doing so is preferable (col. 9, l. 66 – col. 10, l. 2). Eakman’s disclosure is not limited to the preferred embodiments. See In re Kohler, Appeal 2013-010492 Application 12/882,412 7 475 F.2d 651, 653 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). The Appellants assert that Barnicki does not disclose simultaneous production of chemicals and electric power (App. Br. 12). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. In making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Barnicki’s disclosure that using synthesis gas to generate electric power was known in the art (¶ 10) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to produce synthesis gas and use it to synthesize chemicals and/or generate electric power. Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections The Appellants do not provide a substantive argument challenging the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections (App. Br. 14– 15).2,3 We therefore affirm those rejections. 2 The Appellants argue that “claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/882,417 has been amended such that at least one of the original claims 15-18 (in that application) is now present in amended claim 1. Since none of original claims 15-18 of the ‘417 application has been applied against the present claims, Appellants again submit that the amendment to claim 1 of the ‘417 application renders provisional rejection (5) moot” (App. Br. 15). That argument is unpersuasive as failing to indicate reversible error in the Examiner’s rationale supporting the rejection. 3 The issue of whether the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections include new rejections (App. Br. 14–15) is petitionable to the Appeal 2013-010492 Application 12/882,412 8 DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1–12 and 14–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Eakman in view of Koh, Couche, Barnicki, and Rojey and the provisional rejections under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting of claims 1, 6–8, 10–12, 15, and 18 over claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 12–15, and 17–19 of copending Application No. 12/882,408 in view of Eakman and Rojey, claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 16, and 18 over claims 1, 5–9, 17, and 18 of copending Application No. 12/778,548 (issued as Patent No. 8,728,182 on May 20, 2014) in view of Barnicki and Rojey, claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 18 over claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–11, and 18 of copending Application No. 12/778,552 (issued as Patent No. 8,728,183 on May 20, 2014) in view of Eakman, Barnicki, and Rojey, claims 1, 6, 7, 10–12, and 18 over claims 1, 7–11, 13– 15, 18, and 19 of copending Application No. 12/851,864 in view of Barnicki and claims 1, 6, 7, 9–12, 14–16 and 18 over claims 1, 6–14, and 20 of copending Application No. 12/882,417 in view of Barnicki are affirmed. It is ordered that 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). AFFIRMED bar Technology Center Director, not appealable to the Board. See MPEP § 1002.02(c)(3)(a) (2004).