Ex Parte Strack et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

11178037 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
11/178,037 07/08/2005 Robert David Strack 2005B064 9830
23455 7590 03/29/2013
EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY
5200 BAYWAY DRIVE
P.O. BOX 2149
BAYTOWN, TX 77522-2149
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2013 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 ROBERT DAVID STRACK and JOHN R. MESSINGER
____________

Appeal 2012-002688
Application 11/178,037
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHUNG K. PAK, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
The named inventors (hereinafter “Appellants”)1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 18
and 20 through 24,2 all of the claims pending in the above-identified
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as “ExxonMobil Chemical
Patents, Inc., 13501 Katy Freeway, Houston, Texas, 77079.” (See Appeal
Brief filed May 23, 2011 (“App. Br.”) at 1.)
2 See App. Br. 2 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 16, 2011
(“Ans.”) at 2.
Appeal 2012-002688
Application 11/178,037

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “a method for processing
the gaseous effluent from hydrocarbon pyrolysis units, especially those units
utilizing feeds that are heavier than naphtha.” (Spec. 1, para. 0002.) Details
of the appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative independent claim 1
reproduced below from the “CLAIMS APPENDIX” in the Appeal Brief:
1. A method for treating gaseous effluent from a hydrocarbon
pyrolysis unit, the method comprising:
(a) cooling said gaseous effluent at least to a temperature at
which tar, formed by reaction among constituents of the
gaseous effluent, condenses;
(b) passing a mixed gaseous and liquid effluent from step (a)
through at least one vapor-liquid separator, where the
condensed tar separates from the gaseous effluent and the
condensed tar is removed from the method as separator
bottoms;
(c) cooling the tar-depleted gaseous effluent from step (b) in
one or more cracked gas coolers to condense a liquid effluent
quench oil;
(d) passing at least a portion of the effluent from step (c)
containing liquid effluent quench oil through at least one
rectifier comprising a fixed number of distillation stages
ranging from about 2 to about 20 and/or equivalent suitable
packing and comprising a reflux inlet for introducing a
pyrolysis gasoline fraction, and further, obtaining liquid
effluent quench oil as rectifier bottoms;
(e) cooling the gaseous effluent from step (d) to condense a
liquid effluent comprising pyrolysis gasoline and water
condensed from steam;
(f) treating a mixed gaseous and liquid effluent from step (e) to
at least partially separate therefrom a liquid pyrolysis gasoline
Appeal 2012-002688
Application 11/178,037

3
rich stream; and
(g) passing at least a portion of the liquid pyrolysis gasoline
rich stream as reflux to said rectifier.

(See App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x).)(Emphasis added.)
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection Claims 1 through
18 and 20 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
disclosure of U.S. Patent 4,150,716 issued to Ozaki et al. on April 24, 1979
(“Ozaki”). (See App. Br. 4.)

DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds (Ans. 4-5) that:
Ozaki discloses a process for recovery [sic, recovering]
heat from a pyrolysis process wherein an effluent from the
pyrolysis process is passed into a first cooling zone by
contacting with a quench liquid (e.g., quench oil and direct heat
exchange) to condense at least a portion of heavy hydrocarbons
and produced a cooled effluent which is then passed into a
[first] separation zone (knock-out drum [49]) wherein heavy
hydrocarbons including tar are separated from the cooled
[gaseous] effluent. At least a portion of the heavy
hydrocarbons is recycled back to the [first] cooling zone [as the
quench liquid]. The cooled effluent [from the first separation
zone (knock-out drum 49)] is then passed into a [cooling type]
fractionation column [51] to produce an overhead stream which
is condensed [in cooler 53] and separated [in an oil-water
separator 54] to provide a light oil having a boiling point up to
170° C and would have rich in gasoline. At least apportion of
the light oil is then recycled to the [cooling-type] fractionation
column as a reflux.

Appeal 2012-002688
Application 11/178,037

4
Ozaki also teaches that other hydrocarbons supplied from an outside source,
in lieu of the heavy hydrocarbons from the first separation zone, can be used
as a quenching liquid. (col. 3, ll. 60-67 and col. 5, l. 68 to col. 6, l. 2, and
col. 7, ll. 27-30.) Further, Ozaki teaches that the effluent of the pyrolysis
process is cooled to a temperature of 250o C to 350o C in the first cooling
zone to recover its heat and the reflux rate of the light oil in the cooling-type
fractionator is controlled to maintain the temperature (T5) at the top portion
of the cooling-type fractionator at 128o C. (See Answer 4-5 and Ozaki, col.
3, ll. 18-20, col. 6, ll. 16-20 and col. 7, ll. 15-20.)
As acknowledged by the Examiner at page 5 of the Answer, Ozaki
does not teach, inter alia, further cooling the cooled effluent from its first
separation zone to condense a liquid effluent quench oil prior to introducing
the resulting further cooled effluent containing the liquid quench oil into the
cooling-type fractionator in its heat recovery process.
Nevertheless, the Examiner concludes (Ans. 5) that:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified
the process of Ozaki by utilizing a cooling step as in step
c) because the temperature in the fractionation column is lower
than the temperature of the knock-out drum, so it would be
effective to cool the stream from the knock-out drum to a
temperature similar to the operating temperature of the
fractionation column by utilizing heat-exchange to conserve
energy.

On the other hand, Appellants contend that Ozaki does not teach or
suggest further cooling the cooled effluent from its first separation zone to
Appeal 2012-002688
Application 11/178,037

5
condense a liquid effluent quench oil for the purpose of feeding such further
cooled effluent containing the liquid quench oil into the cooling-type
fractionator in its heat recovery process. (App. Br. 13.)
Thus, the dispositive question is: Has the Examiner demonstrated that
one of ordinary skill in the art, from reading the disclosure of Ozaki, would
have been led to condense a liquid effluent quench oil from the cooled
effluent from the first separation zone before introducing the resulting
further cooled effluent containing the condensed liquid effluent quench oil
into the cooling-type fractionator in the heat recovery process taught by
Ozaki? On this record, we answer this question in the negative.
As argued by Appellants at page 13 of the Appeal Brief, Ozaki
teaches introducing the cooled effluent from the first separation zone,
without any further cooling and without condensing any liquid effluent
quench oil, directly into its cooling-type fractionator for the effective and
efficient separation of desired products. (See also Ozaki, col. 5, l. 15 to col.
6, l. 40, Example 1 and Fig. 3.) Ozaki not only does not teach or suggest
employing a cooler between its first separation zone and cooling-type
fractionator, but also does not teach or suggest a cooling temperature at
which the cooled effluent from the first separation zone condenses a liquid
effluent quench oil, even though Ozaki is directed to heat recovery via
employing coolers. (See Id.) Nor has the Examiner shown that such further
cooled effluent containing condensed liquid effluent quench oil is useful for
providing a desired vapor flow in the cooling-type fractionator taught by
Ozaki for its desired separation. (See Ans. 4-7.) In re Warner, 379 F.2d
Appeal 2012-002688
Application 11/178,037

6
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must
rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight
reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”)
Accordingly, on this record, we determine that the Examiner has not
proffered adequate evidence to support a conclusion that one of ordinary
skill in the art, from reading the disclosure of Ozaki, would have been led to
further cool the cooled effluent from its first separation zone to condense a
liquid effluent quench oil for the purpose of feeding such further cooled
effluent containing the condensed liquid quench oil into the cooling-type
fractionator in the heat recovery process taught by Ozaki. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he [E]xaminer bears the initial
burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability.”)

ORDER
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above, it
is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1
through 18 and 20 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the disclosure of Ozaki is REVERSED; and,

REVERSED

cam