Ex Parte You et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201411966722 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2014) 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. 11/966,722 12/28/2007 Lixin You 665326-999842 5624 38393 7590 12/23/2014 Chevron Corporation P.O. Box 6006 San Ramon, CA 94583-0806 EXAMINER WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LIXIN YOU, CRUTISLEE KRAUSE and KEVINHOA NGUYEN ____________ Appeal 2013-001558 Application 11/966,722 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1 through 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellants’ invention is generally directed to a process for generating a synthesis gas. App. Br. 2–3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A process for generating a synthesis gas comprising: concurrently providing an oxidation reactant stream through an oxidation chamber and a reforming reactant stream through a steam reforming chamber, Appeal 2013-001558 Application 11/966,722 2 a) wherein the oxidation chamber is adjacent to the reforming chamber and the oxidation chamber and the reforming chamber are separated by a thermally conductive surface; b) wherein the reforming chamber comprises: an inlet for a reforming stream, an outlet for the reforming stream, and a reforming catalyst disposed on a plurality of heat exchange fins; c) wherein the oxidation chamber comprises: an inlet for an oxidation reactant stream, an outlet for the oxidation reactant stream, and an oxidation catalyst disposed on a plurality of heat exchange fins; d) wherein the inlet of the oxidation chamber is adjacent to the inlet of the reforming chamber; and e) wherein the plurality of heat exchange fins are brazed on the thermally conductive surface. The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Narayan US 2003/0223931 Al Dec. 4, 2003 Reinke US 2005/0178063 Al Aug. 18, 2005 Jiang US 2006/0013759 Al Jan. 19, 2006 McClanahan US 2007/0221541 Al Sep. 27, 2007 Appellants (Appeal Brief 3) request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action: I. Claims 1, 7–l3, 21–22, and 24–25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jiang and Reinke. II. Claims 2–6, 14–20, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jiang, Reinke, and McClanahan. III. Claims 26–30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jiang, Reinke, and Narayan. Appeal 2013-001558 Application 11/966,722 3 OPINION Prior art rejections1, 2 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–30 for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We refer to the Examiner’s Answer for a complete statement of the rejections. Ans. 4–13. The Examiner found Jiang teaches a method of producing hydrogen by concurrently providing an oxidant reactant stream through an oxidation chamber and a reforming reactant stream through a steam reforming chamber with adjacent inlets and outlets, where the chambers are separated by a thermally conductive surface. Ans. 5; Jiang Figure 1 ¶¶ 1, 28, 41–43, 48, 67, 70. The Examiner found Jiang fails to teach that the reforming and oxidation catalysts are disposed on fins that are brazed on the thermally conductive surface. Ans. 5. The Examiner found Reinke teaches a wall brazed with fins on both sides provides a heat exchange relationship between a combustor and a reformer to provide effective heat transfer between the 1 Appellants present arguments for independent claims 1 and 21. App. Br. 3. Appellants rely on substantially the same arguments in addressing independent claims 1 and 21. See Appeal Brief, generally. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to independent claim 1. We note Appellants state that claims 2–20 stand or fall with independent claim 1 and claims 22-30 with independent claim 21. Id. 2 In addressing the Examiner’s separate rejection of claims 2–6, 14–20, 23 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections II and III), Appellants argue that the secondary references to McClanahan and Narayan do not remedy the Jiang deficiencies with respect to independent claims 1 and 21. App. Br. 7– 9. Accordingly, our discussion of the prior art rejection of claims 1 and 21 applies to Rejections II and III. Appeal 2013-001558 Application 11/966,722 4 combustor and the reformer. Ans. 5–6; Reinke Figure 2, ¶¶ 1, 9, 45. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiang’s thermally conductive surface to include brazed fins on both sides for the benefits disclosed by Reinke. Ans. 5–6; Reinke Figure 2, ¶¶ 9, 45. Appellants argue Jiang does not teach the disclosed oxidation stream comprising hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide and expressly teaches away from having hydrogen as a component of the oxidation steam. App. Br. 5; Spec ¶¶ 19, 55. We are unpersuaded by this argument. As noted by the Examiner, claim 1 requires providing an oxidation reactant stream and does not require hydrogen as a component of this stream. Ans. 13-14. Therefore, Appellants have not adequately distinguished the claimed invention from the process disclosed in Jiang. Appellants further argue Jiang teaches the use of a catalyst as optional because Jiang discloses the use of non-catalytic packing material. App. Br. 6; Jiang ¶¶ 32, 34. Appellants additionally argue Jiang uses the non- catalytic packing material to dissipate and remove heat from the exothermic reaction in the oxidation chamber instead of transferring the heat to the endothermic reaction in the reforming chamber. App. Br. 6; Jiang ¶¶ 32, 34. We are also unpersuaded by these arguments. Appellants acknowledge that Jiang discloses alternative embodiments where the use of catalysts is optional. App. Br. 6; Jiang ¶¶ 32, 34. It is well settled that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Appeal 2013-001558 Application 11/966,722 5 (“all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered”) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). The disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971). Appellants have not adequately explained how the claimed process distinguishes from the embodiment of Jiang’s process that uses catalysts. Ans. 5; Jiang ¶¶ 33, 44. With respect to Appellants allegation that Jiang teaches dissipation and removal of heat, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that this is also an alternative embodiment disclosed by Jiang to address hot spots issues concerning the exothermic reaction. Ans. 16; Jiang ¶ 34. As noted by the Examiner, Jiang discloses transference of heat between the oxidation and reforming chambers. Ans. 16; Jiang ¶¶ 11, 12, 24. Appellants have not adequately argued otherwise. Appellants argue Jiang teaches counter-current flow should be employed as opposed to concurrent, as claimed, to optimize heat transfer through the thermal contact area between the chambers. App. Br. 6; Jiang ¶ 58. We are unpersuaded by this argument and again agree with the Examiner that Jiang’s embodiment using counter current feeds to the oxidation and reforming chambers is a preferred embodiment that does not detract from Jiang’s broader disclosure of non-preferred embodiments. Ans. 17–18; see In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971). Appellants argue Reinke is specifically directed only to counter- current flow as opposed to the instant concurrent claims. App. Br. 7; Reinke ¶¶ 51, 54. Thus, Appellants argue the ordinary skilled artisan would not be Appeal 2013-001558 Application 11/966,722 6 motivated to substitute any individual feature of Reinke's counter-current process into some concurrent process and expect that it would somehow work. App. Br. 7-8. We are unpersuaded by these arguments as well. Appellants’ arguments are directed to incorporation of specific elements of Reinke’s process into Jiang’s process. However, it is well established that the obviousness inquiry does not ask “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (stating “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference”). As noted by the Examiner, Jiang discloses using an oxidation chamber and a reforming chamber separated by a thermally conductive surface in a process of making synthesis gas. Ans. 5; Jiang Figure 1 ¶¶ 1, 28, 41–43, 48, 67, 70. As also noted by the Examiner, Reinke discloses using combustor and reformer chambers to make synthesis gas where the chambers are in a heat exchange relationship separated by a wall brazed with fins on both sides to provide highly effective heat transfer between the combustor and the steam reformer. Ans. 5–6; Reinke Figure 2, ¶¶ 1, 9, 45. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonably expected that the use of Reinke’s wall brazed with fins as the thermally conductive surface between Jiang’s oxidation and reforming chambers would have resulted in heat transfer between the chambers so as to promote the formation of synthesis gas. Appellants have not adequately explained why it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Appeal 2013-001558 Application 11/966,722 7 Reinke’s wall brazed with fins in Jiang’s process to improve the heat exchange transfer between Jiang’s oxidation and reforming chambers. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. ORDER The prior art rejections of claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED sl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation