Ex Parte Vandaele

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2011

11498336 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

Ex parte Hugo Vandaele
______________

Appeal 2010-004217
Application 11/498,336
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicant appeals to the Board from the decision of the Primary
Examiner finally rejecting claims 19-29 and 38 in the Office Action mailed
April 30, 2009. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134(a) (2002); 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a)
(2009).
We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claims 19 and 23 illustrate Appellant’s invention of a process for
multi-reactor polymerization of an olefin polymer, including transferring a
Appeal 2010-004217
Application 11/498,336
2
polymer slurry of particles between reactors, and are representative of the
claims on appeal:
19. A multi-reactor polymerization process for the production of an
olefin polymer comprising:
a) introducing an olefin monomer, a polymerization catalyst
and a diluent carrier liquid into a first reactor of a multi-
reactor polymerization system and circulating said
diluent liquid and monomer in said first reactor to
polymerize said monomer in the presence of said catalyst
system to produce a slurry of polymer particles in said
diluent carrier liquid;
b) introducing an olefin monomer, a polymerization catalyst
and a diluent carrier liquid into a second reactor of said
multi-reactor polymerization system and circulating said
diluent liquid and monomer in said second reactor to
polymerize said monomer in the presence of said catalyst
system to produce a second slurry of polymer particles in
said diluent carrier liquid;
c) directing said polymer slurry in said first reactor into a
settling leg connected to said first reactor; and
d) transferring polymer slurry from said settling leg of said
first reactor directly to said second reactor through a
transfer system comprising a transfer line which is
predominantly horizontal in that it is at an angle of
inclination from the horizontal which is less than 45
degrees.
23. A method for polymerization of an olefin monomer in a double
loop reactor system comprising first and second interconnected loop
reactors comprising:
a) introducing an olefin monomer and a diluent carrier
liquid into a first loop reactor of said reactor system;
b) supplying a polymerization catalyst system to said first
loop reactor;
Appeal 2010-004217
Application 11/498,336
3
c) circulating said olefin monomer through said first loop
reactor while polymerizing said olefin monomer in the
presence of said catalyst system to produce a slurry of
polymer fluff particles in said diluent carrier liquid;
d) diverting the flow of said slurry through said first loop
reactor into a settling leg connected to said first loop
reactor;
e) withdrawing said slurry from the settling leg of said first
loop reactor and supplying said withdrawn slurry to said
second loop reactor through a transfer line which is
predominantly horizontal as characterized by an angle of
inclination from the horizontal which is less than 45
degrees;
f) introducing an olefin monomer and a diluent carrier
liquid into said second loop reactor and polymerizing
said olefin monomer to produce a slurry of polymer
particles in said second reactor; and
g) diverting the flow of said slurry through said second loop
reactor into a second reactor settling leg connected to
said second loop reactor and sequentially discharging the
settled polymer slurry from said second reactor settling
leg to withdraw said polymer slurry from said reactor
system.
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal by the Examiner (Br. 4) 1: claims 19-22 and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Harban (US 3,345,431) (Ans. 3); and claims 23-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Debras (US 5,639,834) in view of Harban.
(Ans. 7).
Appellant argues claims 19-22 and 38 as a group, and claims 23-29 as
a group. See generally Br. Thus, we decide this appeal based on claims 19

1 We considered Appeal Brief filed July 27, 2009, and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed April 30, 2009.
Appeal 2010-004217
Application 11/498,336
4
and 23. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009).
Opinion
We are of the opinion Appellant’s arguments do not establish that the
evidence in the totality of the record weighs in favor of the non-anticipation
and nonobviousness of the claimed multi-reactor polymerization process
encompassed by independent claim 19 and the claimed method for
polymerization of an olefin monomer in a double loop reaction system
encompassed by independent claim 23. In this respect, we are in agreement
with the Examiner’s analysis of the evidence in the references and the
findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in the Answer, to which we
add the following for emphasis with respect to Appellant’s arguments.
I. § 102(b): claims 19-22 and 38 over Harban
Claim 19 specifies a multi-reactor polymerization process for
production of an olefin polymer comprising at least, among other things, a
step for transferring polymer slurry from the settling leg of the first reactor
directly to the second reactor through a transfer system comprising at least a
transfer line which is predominantly horizontal in that it has an angle of
inclination from the horizontal which is less than 45 degrees.
We first interpret representative independent claim 19 by giving the
terms thereof the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
description in the Specification. See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and cases cited therein; In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We are of the opinion that the plain
language of claim 19, given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, specifies a multi-reactor polymerization process
comprising at least, among other things, any transfer system comprising at
Appeal 2010-004217
Application 11/498,336
5
least any transfer line which is predominantly horizontal, having an angle of
inclination from the horizontal of less than 45 degrees, wherein the transfer
system transfers in any manner a slurry of polymer particles directly from
the settling leg of a first reactor to any entry point of a second reactor of a
multi-reactor polymerization system. See Spec., e.g., 3:5-20. The open-
ended term “comprising,” used in transition as well as in the body of claim
19, opens the claim to encompass processes in which the transfer system has
any manner of additional component(s). See, e.g., In re Baxter, 656 F.2d
679, 686 (CCPA 1981) (“As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is
propylene, any other monomer may be present, because the term ‘comprises’
permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”).
Appellant submits that the Examiner erred in finding that Harban
would have described to one skilled in the art a multi-reactor polymerization
process which anticipates claim 19. Br. 4. Appellant contends that Harban
“teaches passing polymer solids from settling leg 18 into auger conveyor 19
and then to wash column 20,” whereas claim 19 requires “transferring
polymer slurry from the settling leg of the first reactor directly to the second
reactor” through a predominately horizontal transfer line. Br. 4, citing
Harban col. 4, ll. 35-40. Appellant thus contends that Harban neither
teaches, shows nor suggests direct transfer of the polymer slurry between the
first and second reactors, or teaches a predominantly horizontal transfer line
between the two reactors. Br. 4.
We find that Harban discloses a transfer system for moving slurried
polymer solids from settling leg 18 of reactor 10 through horizontal auger
conveyor 19 into the upper portion of wash column 20 wherein the polymer
solids settle into the second reactor 22. Harban, e.g., col. 2, ll. 34-56, col. 4,
Appeal 2010-004217
Application 11/498,336
6
ll. 33-47, and Fig. Harban teaches that “[i]n a preferred aspect of the
invention, the wash column is a narrowed extension of the second reactor so
that the polymer formed in the first reactor can be permitted to flow directly
down through the wash column and into the second reactor.” Harban col. 2,
ll. 48-52.
On this record we cannot subscribe to Appellant’s position. We
disagree with the Appellant that Harban does not disclose a transfer system
that comprises a transfer line that is predominantly horizontal as claimed in
claim 19 as we interpreted this claim above. We find that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have drawn from Harban’s Figure2 that auger conveyer
19 is a predominantly horizontal transfer line that extends from leg 18 to
wash column 20. Indeed, auger conveyor 19 and wash column 20 are
components of a transfer system that directly transfers a slurry of polymer
particles between the two reactors. Thus, Harban describes to one skilled in
the art a transfer system that comprises a predominately horizontal transfer
line and directly transfers a slurry of polymer particles between the leg of a
first reactor and an entry point of a second reactor as required by the claim
19. In this respect, we determined above that the claim 19 does not specify
that the transfer system excludes a wash column within the transfer system.
In other words, the plain language of claim 19 does not support an
interpretation of the term directly as requiring no intervening devices
between the first and second reactors other than the predominately
horizontal transfer line.

2 The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with
the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, (CCPA 1977)
Appeal 2010-004217
Application 11/498,336
7
Moreover, we are reinforced in our view that Harban anticipates claim
19 by the finding that Harban describes a preferred embodiment in which the
wash column is a narrowed extension of the second reactor. Thus, Harban
describes a transfer system in which the predominately horizontal auger
conveyer transfer line transfers the slurry of polymer particles directly from
the settling leg of the first reactor to the wash column entry point of the
second reactor as required by claim 19.
Accordingly, we find that Harban would have described to one skilled
in the art a multi-reactor polymerization process including each and every
limitation of claim 19, arranged as required therein. Thus, we affirm the
ground of rejection of claims 19-22 and 38 as being anticipated by Harban
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
II. § 103(a): claims 23-29 over Debras in view of Harban
Claim 23 specifies a method for the polymerization of an olefin
monomer in a double loop reactor system comprising at least, among other
things, a step for withdrawing slurry from the settling leg of the first loop
reactor and supplying the slurry to a second loop reactor through a transfer
line which is predominantly horizontal as characterized by an angle of
inclination from the horizontal that is less than 45 degrees.
Appellant relies on the arguments made with respect to Harban alone,
which arguments do not distinguish Harban as set forth above. Br. 4-5.
Therefore, Appellant does not establish that claim 23 patentably
distinguishes over the combined teachings of Debras and Harban.
Accordingly, we affirm the ground of rejection of claims 23-29 as
obvious over Debras and Harban under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-004217
Application 11/498,336
8
Conclusion
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of anticipation found in Harban
and of obviousness found in the combination of Debras and Harban with
Appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for non-anticipation
and nonobviousness and conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence and
weight of argument, that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed
claims 19-22 and 38 would have been anticipated as a matter of fact under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and the claimed invention encompassed by appealed
claims 23-29 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
The Primary 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tc