Ex Parte Van den Berg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12089774 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/089,774 06/30/2008 Robert Erwin Van den Berg
23632 7590 10/03/2016
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TS1674 02 (US) 6517
EXAMINER
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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 ROBERT ERWIN VAN DEN BERG, JOHANNES
MARGARETHA VAN MONTFOR,
JACOBUS HENDRIKUS SCHEERMAN, and
JOHANNES GERARDUS SCHILDER
Appeal2014-005882
Application 12/089,774
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and
CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--22. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal2014-005882
Application 12/089,774
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A process for preparing a hydrocarbon product from a solid
carbonaceous fuel, the process comprising the steps of:
(a) supplying a solid carbonaceous fuel and an oxygen
containing stream to a burner of a gasification reactor, wherein
a C02 containing transport gas is used to transport the solid
carbonaceous fuel to the burner wherein the weight ratio of C02
to the carbonaceous fuel in step (a) is less than 0.3 on a dry
basis;
(b) partially oxidising the carbonaceous fuel in the
gasification reactor, thereby obtaining a gaseous stream
comprising CO, C02, and H2;
( c) removing the gaseous stream obtained in step (b)
from the gasification reactor;
( d) optionally shift converting at least part of the gaseous
stream as obtained in step ( c) thereby obtaining a CO depleted
stream; and
(e) subjecting the gaseous stream of step (c) and/or the
optional CO depleted stream of step ( d) to a Fischer-
Tropsch reaction to obtain a hydrocarbon product.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Paull et al. US 3,976,442 Aug. 24, 197 6
(hereinafter Paull)
Najjar US 4,776,860 Oct. 11, 1988
(hereinafter "Najjar")
Maretto et al. US 5,827,902 Oct. 27, 1998
(hereinafter "Maretto")
Shiroto et al. US 2003/0036572 Al Feb.20,2003
(hereinafter "Shiroto")
Schinski US 6,596, 781 B 1 Jul. 22,2003
(hereinafter "Schinski")
2
Appeal2014-005882
Application 12/089,774
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4--6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Najjar and in view of Maretto.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paull in view ofMaretto, and
Najjar.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paull, Maretto, and Najjar, as applied to claim 1, and
further in view of Shiroto.
4. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Paull, Maretto, and Najjar, as applied to claim 1,
and further in view of Schinski.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether there is sufficient
motivation in the Examiner's proposed modification of Najjar of substituting
Najjar's methanation reactor with Maretto's multistage slurried Fischer-
Tropsch reactor.
On pages 3--4 of the Answer, the Examiner specifically finds:
Furthermore, Najjar does not explicitly disclose that the
gaseous stream from step ( c) is sent to a Fisher-Tropsch reactor,
but rather to a methanation reactor to make a hydrocarbon.
Najjar discloses producing several chemicals from the
product gas (as discussed above), but fails to go into detail
regarding the specific processes used. In other words, Najjar
does not explicitly disclose the hydrocarbon forming reaction is
a multistage slurried Fischer-Tropsch reaction with an iron
catalyst.
3
Appeal2014-005882
Application 12/089,774
ivfaretto also discloses a process in which a generated
synthesis gas is converted to other chemicals (col. 1 lines 11-
16).
Maretto teaches utilizing a slurried (see abstract)
multistage Fischer Tropsch (see abstract and title) and utilizes
an iron catalyst (col. 2 lines 24-27) that takes a synthesis gas
and reacts it to efficiently and successfully produce a
hydrocarbon fuel in an improved and productive manner (col.
13 lines 3 5-44 ).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the Fischer-
Tropsch slurry process of Maretto to the process of Najjar in
order to efficiently and successfully produce a hydrocarbon fuel
in an improved and productive manner.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that there is insufficient motivation for
the proposed modification for the reasons set forth on pages 3-13 of the
Appeal Brief. Among the reasons provided is that the substitution of a
methanation reactor with a multistage slurried Fischer-Tropsch reactor is in
error. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants explain that the input into the reactor of
Maretto is very different from Najjar. Appellants state that Najjar discloses
that the stream that may be subjected to methanation reactions is a "gas"
stream. Appellant state that Maretto, on the other hand, discloses that the
reactor utilizes a gas phase, a liquid phase, and a solid phase. Appellants
submit that therefore implementation of Maretto' s multistage slurried
Fischer-Tropsch reactor in place ofNajjar's methanation reactor is not a
simple swap as portrayed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 8-11.
The Examiner states the feed to Maretto is a synthesis gas, similar to
that of Najjar and refers to column 2, 11. 20-59 of Maretto in this regard.
Ans. 16. However, we agree with Appellants' aforementioned interpretation
of Marreto. Appellants' interpretation is further supported by col. 7, 11. 43-
4
Appeal2014-005882
Application 12/089,774
45 of ivfaretto, which discloses that the liquid phase, containing the
suspended solids, can be under batch conditions or have a concurrent flow
with the gas stream to the reactor from the bottom. Whether batch flow or
concurrent flow, it is clear that more than just gas is in the feed stream
required by Maretto.
In response to argument, the Examiner states that the proposed
modification does not eliminate the solid and liquid phases inside the reactor
of Marreto, but simply gives a source of synthesis gas (of Najjar) that is
required by Maretto. Ans. 16-17. However, again, the Examiner is
incorrect in finding that the solid and liquid phases are inside the reactor
(versus part of the feed).
For the aforementioned reasons, along with the other reasons provided
by Appellants in the record, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1.
Rejection 2
Rejections 2, 3, and 4 each involve the combination of Paull in view
of Maretto and Najjar (among other references). The manner in which the
Examiner employs the combination of Najjar and Maretto in these rejections
is the same as set forth in Rejection 1. Ans. 5-13. Hence, for the same
reasons, we reverse Rejections 2--4 because the other applied references are
not used to cure the stated deficiencies.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
5
Appeal2014-005882
Application 12/089,774
ORDER
REVERSED
6