Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

13496286 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
13/496,286 11/26/2012 Qiang Yang ECU-000200 9197
63614 7590 09/25/2017
HAMILTON, DESCANCTIS & CHA (GENERAL)
Doug
224 South Main Street
#114
Springville, UT 84663
EXAMINER
HOLECEK, CAB RENA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1776
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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):
dhamilton @ hdciplaw. com
miquelchamilton@hamiltonshome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QIANG YANG, HUALIN WANG, ZHIMING LI,
YANHONG ZHANG, XIN CUI, DEJIAN XU, WENJIE LV,
and XIAOMEI XU
Appeal 2017-001128
Application 13/496,286
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JULIA HEANEY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-001128
Application 13/496,286
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Claims 1 and 10 illustrate the invention:
1. A process for optimized combination of purification
and separation of MTO reaction gas containing catalyst fine
powder, comprising:
(a) scrubbing, purifying and cooling the MTO reaction
gas containing catalyst fine powder to yield a scrubbing liquid,
and separating a mist entrained in a scrubbed MTO reaction gas
and recovering the catalyst fine powder that is not scrubbed out
in a gas phase recovery;
(b) subjecting the scrubbing liquid containing catalyst
fine powder to solid-liquid separation to yield a purified
scrubbing liquid; subjecting the purified scrubbing liquid to
heat exchange and a stripping treatment; and after subjecting
the purified scrubbing liquid to heat exchange and the stripping
treatment, subjecting the purified scrubbing liquid; and
(c) subjecting the catalyst-containing concentrated liquid
to solid-liquid separation; after solid-liquid separation, further
concentrating the scrubbing liquid containing catalyst fine
powder; and recovering the catalyst fine powder in solid form
by centrifugal dewatering or drying.
10. An apparatus for optimized combination of
purification and separation of MTO reaction gas containing
catalyst fine powder, comprising:
a scrubbing tower for scrubbing, purifying and cooling
the MTO reaction gas containing catalyst fine powder;
a gas-solid/liquid separator for separating and recovering
a mist entrained in the scrubbed reaction gas and the catalyst
fine powder that is not scrubbed off;
2
Appeal 2017-001128
Application 13/496,286
a micro-cyclone clarifier for solid-liquid separation of a
scrubbing liquid containing catalyst fine powder to yield a
purified scrubbing liquid;
a heat exchanger and a stripper for subsequent heat
exchange and stripping of the purified scrubbing liquid after
separation to yield a stripped liquid;
a micro-cyclone concentrator for concentrating the
stripped liquid containing catalyst fine powder after separation;
and
a centrifugal dehydrator or dryer for recovering the
catalyst fine powder in solid form.
Appellants1 (App. Br.2 9) request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s Final Office Action:
I. Claims 1, 9, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bai (CN 101352620 A, published January 28, 2009, and
relying on an English machine translation dated October 28, 2014) and
Myers (US 2009/0325783 Al, published December 31, 2009).
II. Claims 2, 4, and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bai, Myers, and Wang (US 2010/0059456 Al, published
March 11, 2010).
III. Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bai, Myers, Van Den Berg (WO 2009/130292 A3,
published October 29, 2009) and Shuo (CN 200981028 Y, published
November 28, 2007).
1 The real party in interest is identified as East China University of Science
and Technology. App. Br. 2.
2 Appellants filed a Supplemental Appeal Brief on November 30, 2015 as a
timely response to a Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief dated
November 23, 2015. Appellants indicate on page 1 of the Supplemental
Appeal Brief that it replaces the Appeal Brief originally filed September 8,
2015. For the purposes of this opinion, we refer to the Supplemental Appeal
Brief as the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”).
3
Appeal 2017-001128
Application 13/496,286
IV. Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bai, Myers, and Beech (US 2007/0197845 Al, published
August 23, 2007).
V. Claims 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bai, Myers, Beech, and Job (US 2003/0050184 Al,
published March 13, 2003).
As a preliminary matter, we note that Appellants present arguments
addressing claims 11—19. App. Br. 13—14. These claims were subject to a
restriction (lack of unity of invention) requirement and were withdrawn by
the Examiner as non-elected on the basis that claims 1—10 were
constructively elected by original presentation. Final Act. 2—5. As
recognized by Appellants, contesting the restriction (lack of unity of
invention) requirement is not an appealable matter. App. Br. 13. Therefore,
since claims 11—19 were not rejected by the Examiner on the merits, we
decline to consider these arguments as these claims are not before us for
review on appeal.
For Rejection I, Appellants present arguments only for independent
claims 1 and 10. See generally Appeal Brief. Further, Appellants rely on
the arguments for claim 1 in addressing the separate rejections of claims 2—8
(Rejections II—V) and do not address or further distinguish the additionally
cited secondary references based on the additional limitations of the
respectively rejected claims. Id. at 12. Accordingly, we address claims 1
and 10 together as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal.
Claims 2—9 stand or fall with independent claim 1.
4
Appeal 2017-001128
Application 13/496,286
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1—10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We add the
following for emphasis.
The claimed invention is directed to a process (claim 1) and device
(claim 10) for optimized combination of purification and separation of
methanol to olefin (MTO) reaction gas containing catalyst fine powder.
App. Br. 6—7. According to the Specification, the claimed invention seeks to
provide a purified olefin product while at the same time recovering
expensive catalyst for reuse. Spec. Tflf 5, 9—10.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a complete statement of
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claims 1 and 10. Final Act. 6—11.
The only finding by the Examiner disputed by Appellants is whether
Bai discloses or suggests a method step for recovering remainder catalyst
from a mist entrained in a reaction gas and a gas-solid/liquid separator for
such purpose, as respectively required by the subject matters of independent
claims 1 and 10.3 App. Br. 10—13. The Examiner relies on Bai as teaching
a process and device (water column 3) to recover remainder catalyst fine
3 A discussion of the reference to Myers is unnecessary for disposition of
this appeal. Myers was relied upon by the Examiner to teach it was known to
produce a substantially dried catalyst using a drying chamber in a catalyst
recovery process. Final Act. 8—10; Myers Figure 1,127. Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to Myers. See generally
Appeal Brief.
5
Appeal 2017-001128
Application 13/496,286
powders not scrubbed out in a gas phase recovery from a mist entrained in a
scrubbed MTO reaction gas as recited by claims 1 and 10. Final Act. 7, 10;
Bai the Figure, 39, 48.
Focusing on claim 1, Appellants argue claim 1 requires “separating a
mist entrained in a scrubbed MTO reaction gas and recovering the catalyst
fine powder that is not scrubbed out in a gas phase recovery process.” App.
Br. 10. According to Appellants, this language needs to be interpreted in
light of the disclosure in paragraph 57 of the Specification that states the
recovery of the remainder catalyst from the mist entrained in the reaction gas
is performed before it leaves the scrubbing tower so the gas phase recovery
operates directly on the reaction gas while it is still in the gas phase. Id. at
10-11. Appellants contend the method and device of Bai is directed to a
liquid phase recovery of the remainder catalyst and does not teach a
separating and recovery process performed as part of a gas phase recovery
process. Id. at 10, 12—13.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness. As noted above, Appellants urge us to
interpret claim 1 according to an embodiment of the invention described in
paragraph 57 of the Specification. Id. at 11. We first note that the language
of neither claim 1 nor claim 10 requires recovering the remainder catalyst
from the mist entrained in the reaction gas before it leaves the scrubbing
tower, as argued. Instead, the language of the claims only requires
recovering the remainder catalyst fine powder that is not scrubbed off by the
initial scrubbing process, which is a gas phase recovery process. Neither the
language of claim 1 nor of claim 10 excludes recovering the remainder
catalyst after it leaves the scrubbing tower in either a gas phase or a liquid
6
Appeal 2017-001128
Application 13/496,286
phase. Moreover, the embodiment of the invention Appellants urge us to
rely upon to interpret the language of claims 1 and 10 is, at best, described as
a preferred embodiment. Spec. 132. Thus, in light of the totality of the
Specification, the limitation of this embodiment should not be read into the
language of the claims. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (“Though understanding
the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written
description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the
written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is
broader than the embodiment.”). As such, we determine that the claim does
not require recovering the remainder catalyst from the mist entrained in the
reaction gas before it leaves the scrubbing tower.
While Appellants contend that Bai is directed to a liquid phase
recovery process/device (App. Br. 10, 12—13), Appellants do not direct us to
any portion of Bai or to any other evidence that supports this contention.
Appellants, at most, have provided mere attorney arguments and such
arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315
(CCPA 1979). Even assuming arguendo that Bai is directed to a liquid
phase recovery process/device, we again reiterate that the language of either
claim 1 or claim 10 does not exclude such a process/device for recovery of
the claimed catalyst fine powder.
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner
and given above.
7
Appeal 2017-001128
Application 13/496,286
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are 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).
AFFIRMED
8