Ex Parte Spicer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201312437063 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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. 12/437,063 05/07/2009 David B. Spicer 2009EM001/2 6744 23455 7590 09/27/2013 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY 5200 BAYWAY DRIVE P.O. BOX 2149 BAYTOWN, TX 77522-2149 EXAMINER ETHERTON, BRADLEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1772 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2013 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 DAVID B. SPICER,1 Caleb M. Scherer, James M. Frye, and Subramanian Annamalai ________________ Appeal 2012-008515 Application 12/437,063 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARK NAGUMO, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL David B. Spicer, Caleb M. Scherer, James M. Frye, and Subramanian Annamalai (“Spicer”) timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final 1 The real party in interest is listed as ExxonMobil Chemical Company. (Appeal Brief, filed 9 December 2011 (“Br.”), 1.) Appeal 2012-008515 Application 12/437,063 2 rejection2 of claims 1-12.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse. OPINION A. Introduction4 The subject matter on appeal relates to processes for cracking a heavy hydrocarbon feedstream, such as crude oil or “atmospheric residue.” (Spec. 1 [0002], [0003].) Conventional steam cracking of such feedstocks to olefins is said to result in the laying-down of coke in the convection section of the furnaces. (Id. at [0004]; 10 [0048]-11 [0050].) Spicer seeks patent protection for a process that is said to not only remove the coke, but also to obviate the necessity of collecting the coke residues and sending them to off- site waste disposal. (Id. at 4 [0013].) This is accomplished by adding steam and air [17a, 17b, 18, shown in medium grey/aqua in Fig. 1 at page 4, infra] to the feedstock stream (dark grey/red) in the convection heating section [2, 6, 23] prior to the vapor liquid separator [5] (id. at 9 [0041]-[0043]), incinerating the coke, and passing the incinerated coke residue [57a, 57b, light grey/orange] into the furnace box between the furnace burners [10] (id. at 16 [0071]). 2 Office action mailed 11 July 2011 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”). 3 Remaining copending claims 13-19 have been withdrawn from consideration (FR 1, § 4a), and are not before us. 4 Application 12/437,063, Process for cracking a heavy hydrocarbon feedstream, filed 7 May 2009, claiming the benefit of 61/142,537, filed 5 January 2009. The specification is referred to as the “063 Specification,” and is cited as “Spec.” Appeal 2012-008515 Application 12/437,063 3 Claim 1 is representative and reads: A process for cracking a hydrocarbon feedstream containing non- volatile components in a hydrocarbon cracking furnace [1] having upper [2, 6] and lower [23] convection heating sections within a flue of the furnace, a radiant heating section [40] downstream of and connected to said lower convection heating section [23], a transfer line exchanger [42] downstream of and connected to said radiant heating section [40], a furnace box containing furnace burners [10] and said radiant heating section [40], and a vapor/liquid separator vessel [5] connected between the upper [2, 6] and lower [23] convection heating sections, the process comprising: (a) passing said hydrocarbon feedstream into said upper convection section [2, 6] to heat said hydrocarbon feedstream to a first temperature sufficient to flash at least a portion of the hydrocarbons within said hydrocarbon feedstream into a vapor phase to form a vapor/liquid stream [12]; (b) passing said vapor/liquid stream [12] out of said upper convection section [2, 6] and into said vapor/liquid separator [5] to separate said vapor/liquid stream [12] into a hydrocarbon- containing vapor phase [13] and a hydrocarbon-containing liquid phase [27] within said vapor/liquid separator [5]; (c) collecting said liquid phase into a bottoms liquid [27] within said vapor/liquid separator [5]; (d) passing said vapor phase [13] into said radiant heating section [40] and cracking hydrocarbons in said vapor phase to form an olefins-containing effluent stream [41]; and (e) periodically injecting an air-steam mixture [17a, 17b, 18] into said convection heating section [2, 6, 23], then through said vapor/liquid separator [5] to incinerate coke formed and passing an App App (Cla to el {Fig co eal 2012-0 lication 12 incine betwe ims App., ements sho . 1 shows steam and ke-inciner 08515 /437,063 rated coke en the furn Br. 14; som wn in Fig {Edited Sp a furnace air (light ation produ residue/a ace burne e indenta . 1, shown ecification for crackin grey/aqua ct (med. g 4 ir-steam m rs [10] wi tion and p below, an Figure 1 g hydroca ) are adde ray/orang ixture so-f thin the fur aragraphin d emphasi is shown b rbon feeds d to the fe e) is put b ormed [57 nace box. g, bracket s added.) elow:} tock (dark edstock; an etween bu a, 57b] ed labels grey/red) d the rners 10} ; Appeal 2012-008515 Application 12/437,063 5 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:5 A. Claims 1 and 3-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Ngan,6 Stell,7 and Speight.8 A1. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Ngan, Stell, Speight, and Shilling.9 B. Discussion Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. The Examiner finds that Ngan and Stell disclose cracking processes that bear many similarities to the claimed process, but do not teach part (e). (The similarity of the apparatuses shown in commonly assigned Stell, e.g., Figs. 1 and 4, and the presence of two inventors in common with the present applicants indicate a significant degree of similarity.) The Examiner relies on the teachings of Speight as evidence that the steps recited in part (e) would have been obvious. 5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 7 March 2012 (“Ans.”). 6 Daniel Yuk-Kwan Ngan et al., Thermal cracking of crude oil and crude oil fractions containing pitch in an ethylene furnace, U.S. Patent 6,632,351 B1 (2003). 7 Richard C. Stell et al., Process and apparatus for cracking hydrocarbon feedstock containing resid to improve vapor yield from vapor/liquid separation, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0098519 A1 (2006). 8 JAMES G. SPEIGHT AND BAKI ÖZÜM, PETROLEUM REFINING PROCESS, 368-85 (2002). 9 Richard L. Shilling et al., Heat Transfer Equipment, in PERRY’S CHEMICAL ENGINEERS’ HANDBOOK 11-1, (R.H. Perry & D.W. Green ed., 7th ed., 1997). Appeal 2012-008515 Application 12/437,063 6 As Spicer points out (e.g., Br. 6, last para., 9-10; Reply10 3-5), the difficulty with the Examiner’s rejections is that although Ngan and Stell (as well as Spicer) are concerned with decoking the pyrolysis furnaces, Speight is concerned with processes of making coke, one of which, “flexicoking,” involves the partial conversion of excess coke to a low heating value gas under reducing conditions. (Speight 378, 1st full para.) The appealed claims, however, require the addition of an air-steam mixture to the convection heating system under conditions that result in the incineration of coke. Incineration (combustion), occurs under oxidizing conditions, not reducing conditions. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that the teachings of Speight (on which the Examiner relies to render obvious the provision of a gas generated from a decomposition reaction of coke) are relevant to critical part (e) of the claimed process. The Examiner does not rely on Shilling for teachings that remedy this deficiency. C. Order We reverse the rejections of claims 1-12. REVERSED bar 10 Reply Brief filed 7 May 2012 (“Reply”). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation