Ex Parte WuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 8, 201714230373 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/230,373 03/31/2014 An-Hsiang Wu 60293.0080USC1 4444 66767 7590 11/13/2017 MERCHANT & GOULD CHEVRON PHILLIPS P.O. BOX 2903 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903 EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1731 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2017 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): USPT066767@merchantgould.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AN-HSIANG WU (Applicant: CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY LP) Appeal 2016-007302 Application 14,230,37s1 2 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Applicant (hereinafter “Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 21—40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is identified as “Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP” (Appeal Brief filed February 15, 2016, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 2). 2 Appeal Br. 9-18; Reply Brief filed July 21, 2016, hereinafter “Reply Br.,” 2—5; Final Office Action entered September 21, 2015, hereinafter “Final Act.,” 3—16; Examiner’s Answer entered June 8, 2016, hereinafter “Ans.,” 2-16. Appeal 2016-007302 Application 14/230,373 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for treating or regenerating a spent catalyst comprising a transition metal and a catalyst support (Specification filed March 31, 2014, hereinafter “Spec.,” 1,11. 23— 24). Representative claim 21 is reproduced from page 20 of the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix), with key limitations emphasized, as follows: 21. A method of treating a spent catalyst comprising a transition metal and a catalyst support, the method comprising: (1) contacting the spent catalyst with a halogen- containing stream to produce a halogenated spent catalyst, wherein the halogen-containing stream comprises from about 250 to about 5000 ppmv of a chlorine-containing compound and from about 250 to about 5000 ppmv of a fluorine-containing compound; (2) contacting the halogenated spent catalyst with a purging stream consisting essentially of an inert gas; and (3) contacting the halogenated spent catalyst with a decoking gas stream comprising oxygen. II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: A. claims 21—26, 28, 30-32, and 34-40 as unpatentable over Murakawa et al.3 (hereinafter “Murakawa”) in view of Hayes4; B. claim 27 as unpatentable over Murakawa in view of Hayes and further in view of Huang et al.5 (hereinafter “Huang”); C. claim 29 as unpatentable over Murakawa in view of 3 US 4,937,215, issued June 26, 1990. 4 US 3,898,173, issued August 5, 1975 5 US 5,756,414, issued May 26, 1998. 2 Appeal 2016-007302 Application 14/230,373 Hayes and further in view of Fung6; and D. claim 33 as unpatentable over Murakawa in view of Hayes and further in view of Wu.7 (Final Act. 3—16; Ans. 2—16.) III. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Murakawa describes every limitation recited in claim 21 except step (2) (i.e., “contacting the halogenated spent catalyst with a purging stream consisting essentially of an inert gas”) (Ans. 2—3). To resolve this difference, the Examiner relies on Hayes. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Hayes teaches a process for regenerating a carbon- containing deactivated catalyst including the steps of halogenating the spent catalyst and decoking the catalyst (id. at 3). The Examiner finds further that, after the halogenation process, the catalyst is contacted with a purging stream consisting essentially of inert gas (id.). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art... to perform an inert gas purge step after halogenation of the spent catalyst in order to displace oxygen, water, and other gaseous materials that result from halogenation prior to further processing” (id.) (citing Hayes col. 13,11. 29-35). The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s articulated reason for combining Murakawa and Hayes is based on impermissible hindsight and, therefore, the rejection is improper (Appeal Br. 9-12). Specifically, the Appellant argues that “there is no benefit—and thus, no motivation—to 6 US 4,492,767, issued January 8, 1985. 7 US 2010/0160147 Al, published June 24, 2010. 3 Appeal 2016-007302 Application 14/230,373 include the purge step of Hayes in the process of Murakawa” (id. at 12) (emphases omitted). In addition, the Appellant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not consider Hayes’s teachings to be relevant to Murakawa because these references are directed to incompatible catalyst rejuvenation processes (id. at 15). We agree with the Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection is not well- founded. Murakawa describes a process for restoring a deactivated catalyst containing zeolite with a Group VIII noble metal supported thereon comprising the steps of decoking the deactivated catalyst in the presence of or after treatment with a halogen or a halogen-containing compound (col. 1, 11. 54—60; col. 12,11. 4—23 (claim 8)). Murakawa teaches that the halogen or halogen-containing compounds are used in a mixture with air or a mixed gas of oxygen and nitrogen (col. 2,11. 40-42). In Example 2, Murakawa discloses restoring the catalyst using a mixed gas including (CFChVCE/lSh (col. 4,11. 33^12). By contrast, Hayes teaches regenerating the catalyst by: (a) burning carbon at a relatively low temperature with a substantially sulfur compound- free gas stream including water and a relatively small amount of O2; (b) treating the resulting partially regenerated catalyst with a substantially sulfur compound-free gas stream containing halogen or a halogen-containing compound, water, and a relatively higher amount of O2; (c) purging O2 and water; and (d) contacting the catalyst with a dry and sulfur compound-free hydrogen stream (Abst.). Hayes teaches that the presence of water in all the steps is a key feature except for the hydrogen reduction step, which uses “a dry and sulfur compound-free hydrogen stream” (Abst.; see also col. 13,11. 28-47). 4 Appeal 2016-007302 Application 14/230,373 The Examiner fails to direct us to sufficient evidence, or persuasive technical reasoning, demonstrating a need in Murakawa to purge oxygen and/or water, as in Hayes, to reduce the catalyst with dry and sulfur compound-free hydrogen gas. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 21. Because the other independent claims (i.e., claims 32 and 35) also require purging with an inert gas, the Examiner’s rejections of all other claims are flawed for the same reasons. IV. SUMMARY Rejections A through D are not sustained. Therefore, the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 21—40 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation