Ex Parte Van Aken

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2017

12993257 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2017)

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.
12/993,257 11/18/2010 Michiel Gijsbert Van Aken TS8706USAP 4597
23632 7590 06/06/2017
SHF! T OH miUPANY EXAMINER
P O BOX 2463 KING, BRIAN M
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHIEL GIJSBERT VAN AKEN
Appeal 2015-006789
Application 12/993,257
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Micheil Gijsbert Van Aken (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Shell Oil Company. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-006789
Application 12/993,257
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method of cooling and liquefying a hydrocarbon stream
comprising at least the steps of:
(i) providing one or more compressors:
(ii) driving the one or more compressors with one or more electric
drivers;
(iii) powering the one or more electric drivers with one or more dual­
fuel diesel-electric generators;
(iv) passing one or more hydrocarbon fuel streams to the one or more
dual-fuel diesel-electric generators; and
(v) operating a liquefaction process comprising providing a
hydrocarbon stream, and cooling and at least partially liquefying the
hydrocarbon stream to obtain a liquefied hydrocarbon stream;
wherein at least one of the one or more hydrocarbon fuel streams
comprises a stream that is generated in the liquefaction process.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
as indefinite.
2) Claims 1, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shipchandler (US 2007/0130991 Al, published
June 14, 2007) and Lee (KR 100812723 published May 3, 2008).
3) Claim 2 and 5—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shipchandler, Lee, and Minta (US 8,616,021
Bl, issued Dec. 31, 2013).
4) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Shipchandler, Lee, and Yoshihara (US 5,729,985, issued Mar. 24,
1998).
2
Appeal 2015-006789
Application 12/993,257
5) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Shipchandler, Lee, Yoshihara, and Foglietta (US 5,755,114, issued
May 26, 1998).
6) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Shipchandler, Lee, and Linnett (US 3,729,945, issued May 1,
1973).
7) Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shipchandler, Lee, and Bird (3,944,400, issued
Mar. 16, 1976).
8) Claims 12, 13, 15—17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Shipchandler, Lee, and Minta.
9) Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shipchandler, Lee, Minta, and Foglietta.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failure to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
The Examiner determines that the limitation in independent claims 1,12,
and 16, “at least partially liquefying the hydrocarbon stream to obtain a
liquefied hydrocarbon stream,” is indefinite because “it is unclear how if the
stream is at least partially liquefied a liquefied . . . stream is acquired.” Non-
Final Act. 2. Appellant contends that this limitation is not indefinite.
Appeal Br. 5.
3
Appeal 2015-006789
Application 12/993,257
“As the statutory language of ‘particularity]’ and ‘distinctness]’
indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear — as opposed to ambiguous,
vague, indefinite —terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
2014). The breadth of a claim, however, is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. See e.g., In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971). In
this case, we determine that this claim limitation, while broad, is not
indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
liquefied hydrocarbon stream would result from wholly or partially
liquefying a gaseous hydrocarbon stream. We, thus, do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection 2
The Examiner finds that Shipchandler discloses the limitations of
claim 1 except “that the dual fuel capability is diesel.” Non-Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that Lee discloses a dual fuel engine that “can be
powered by . . . marine diesel oil as well as natural gas.” Id. at 4. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine Shipbuilder and
Lee “so that the dual fuel capability is diesel.” Id.
Appellants contend that neither Shipchandler nor Lee disclose the
limitation in claim 1 of “powering the one or more electric drivers with one
or more dual-fuel diesel-electric generators.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellants
argue that Lee’s dual fuel generators power a marine propulsion system, not
compressors in a hydrocarbon production facility. Id. at 6. Appellants also
argue that paragraph 25 of Shipchandler does not unambiguously disclose
that dual-fuel generators would power “the compressor drivers of the
production facility.” Id., see also Reply Br. 2—3.
4
Appeal 2015-006789
Application 12/993,257
The Examiner responds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the power generators referred to in paragraph 25 of
Shipchandler “are those involved in the production facilities as the
paragraph itself is focused on the operation of a floating production storage
and offloading facility and the dual fuel benefit. . . would be provided in
start-up and off design cases that may exist in the production facility.” Ans.
16—17 (citing Shipchandler 125.). For the following reasons, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Shipchandler provides:
After removing heat, this methane rich gas portion may then be used
to energize the production facility, such as by installing gas turbine
based power generators and/or gas engine/turbine based compressor
drivers and/or gas fired heaters to satisfy heat load. To maximize use
of gas as internal fuel for floating offshore facilities such as
Dynamically Positioned FPSO, all marine power requirements
(including dynamic positioning thrusters) under operations using the
methane rich stream are sourced from topsides gas turbine generators
(in lieu of utilizing the ship’s marine fuel oil fired power generators)
which also provide power to the production facilities. These power
generators may have dual fuel capability to support start-up and other
off design cases.
Shipchandler 125.
We appreciate the Examiner’s reference to “dual fuel capability” in
Shipchandler; however, this paragraph does not definitively disclose that
dual-fuel generators power the one or more electric drivers which drive the
compressors as required by claim 1. This paragraph refers to “gas turbine
based power generators,” “gas engine/turbine based compressor drivers,”
and “marine fuel oil fired power generators.” Thus, it is not clear which of
“these power generators may have dual fuel capability” and drive the
compressors. Fikewise, it is not clear that the reference to start-up and off
5
Appeal 2015-006789
Application 12/993,257
design cases refers to the production facility. Therefore, the Examiner’s
finding that Shipbuilder discloses “powering the one or more electric drivers
[that drive the compressors] with one or more dual fuel electric generators”
is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. As such, the
Examiner’s conclusion that Shipbuilder in combination with Lee renders
obvious a method comprising the claimed step of “powering the one or more
electric drivers [that drive the compressors] with one or more dual-fuel
diesel-electric generators,” which is predicated on this unsupported finding,
also is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We, thus, do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 9 and 11 which depend from
claim 1.
Rejections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
Claims 2—10 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 10—11 (Claims App.).
The Examiner rejects these claims based on the combination of Shipchandler
and Lee with additional disclosure from Yoshihara, Foglietta, Minta, Linnet,
or Bird. Non-Final Act. 4—8. The Examiner does not rely on the additional
disclosure of Yoshihara, Foglietta, Minta, Linnet, or Bird to cure the
deficiencies in the combination of Shipchandler and Lee discussed above in
connection with the rejection of claim 1. We, thus, do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2—10 for the same reasons stated in connection with the
rejection of claim 1.
Rejection 8
Independent claims 12 and 16 are apparatus claims each of which
recites “one or more dual-fuel diesel-electric generators arranged to provide
electric power to the one or more electric drivers.” Appeal Br. 12—13
(Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 16 based on
6
Appeal 2015-006789
Application 12/993,257
Shipchandler and Lee, with additional teachings from Minta, with essentially
the same findings and reasoning as for claim 1. Non-Final Act. 9—13.
Appellant raises the same contentions as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. We,
thus, do not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 16 for the same reasons
stated above for claim 1. Claims 13 and 15 depend from claim 12, and
claims 17 and 19 depend from claim 16. Id. at 12—13. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 13, 15, 17 and 19 for the same reasons as stated in
connection with the rejection of claims 12 and 16.
Rejection 9
Claims 4 and 18 depend indirectly from claim 1 and claim 16
respectively. Appeal Br. 10, 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claims
4 and 18 based on the combination of Shipchandler and Lee with additional
disclosure from Minta and Foglietta. Non-Final Act. 13—14. The Examiner
does not rely on the additional disclosure of Minta and Foglietta to cure the
deficiencies in the combination of Shipchandler and Lee discussed above in
connection with the rejection of claim 1. We, thus, do not sustain the
rejection of claims 4 and 18 for the same reasons stated in connection with
the rejection of claims 1 and 16.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19 is reversed.
REVERSED
7