Jose Lourenco et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 15, 202012303956 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2020) 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. 12/303,956 12/08/2008 Jose Lourenco THAS132280 1797 26389 7590 05/15/2020 CHRISTENSEN O'CONNOR JOHNSON KINDNESS PLLC 1201 Third Avenue Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 EXAMINER ZEC, FILIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/15/2020 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): efiling@cojk.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOSE LOURENCO and MacKENZIE MILLAR Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 8, 9, and 11–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies two real parties in interest: 1304338 ALBERTA LTD. and 1304342 ALBERTA LTD. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The Specification “relates to a method for re-gasification of liquid natural gas” or LNG for short. Spec. 1:5. The Claims Claims 8, 9, and 11–13 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No other claims are pending. Id. Claim 8, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below. 8. A method of regasification of natural gas, comprising the steps of: positioning a storage vessel of liquid natural gas at a facility that has more than one refrigeration units and connecting the storage vessel to a heat exchanger comprising a primary fluid flow path connected to the storage vessel and a plurality of secondary fluid flow paths spaced in series along the primary fluid flow path in the heat exchanger, wherein each refrigeration unit is connected to a secondary fluid flow path of the plurality of secondary fluid flow paths and wherein the secondary fluid flow paths are mutually separate and distinct; circulating a heat transfer medium in a closed loop between the respective refrigeration unit and the respective secondary fluid flow path in the heat exchanger, the closed loop comprising a first portion that cools the respective refrigeration unit and a second portion that is connected to the respective secondary fluid flow path in the heat exchanger; via the heat exchanger, connecting the storage vessel to a destination, the destination comprising one of natural gas fuel burners related to operation of the facility and a gas main distribution network supplying gas to third party gas consumers; and passing liquid natural gas from the storage vessel along the primary fluid flow path of the heat exchanger to the destination such that a heat exchange takes place between the liquid natural gas and the heat transfer medium that raises the temperature of the liquid natural gas, changing the liquid Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 3 natural gas from a liquid phase to a gaseous phase, and lowers the temperature of the heat transfer medium going to each of the refrigeration units to maintain a temperature of the more than one refrigeration units at above cryogenic temperatures but below freezing, the temperature of the more than one refrigeration units being successively warmer in the direction of flow of the liquid natural gas, the gaseous phase natural gas passing from the heat exchanger to the destination, and the temperature of the heat transfer medium being lowered exclusively by the liquid natural gas in the heat exchanger. Appeal Br. 14–15. The Examiner’s Rejection The rejection before us is the Specification as filed lacks an adequate written description of claims 8, 9, and 11–13 in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1. Final Act. 2. DISCUSSION Section 112 ¶1 states the following: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1. The Examiner’s rejection is based on the written description, not the enablement, requirement of § 112 ¶1. Final Act. 2; see also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (holding that the written description of the invention and enablement of the invention are separate requirements of identically-worded predecessor statute, 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1.). Whether the Specification as filed contains a Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 4 written description of the claims is a question of fact. Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1355. Specifically, the question asks “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. at 1351. All Claims The Examiner found that the Specification as filed lack an adequate written description of “the temperature of the heat transfer medium being lowered exclusively by the liquid natural gas in the heat exchanger,” as recited in claim 8. Final Act. 3 (Examiner’s emphasis). Appellant argues that “the specification provides explicit support” for the “exclusively” feature because, in Figure 1, “no other source of cooling is shown.” Appeal Br. 9. This argument does not apprise us of error. That the Specification does not explicitly describe other forms of cooling is not the same as an explicit description excluding other forms of cooling. “Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“When viewed in its proper context, Santarus simply reflects the fact that the specification need only satisfy the requirements of § 112, paragraph 1 as described in this court's existing jurisprudence, including through compliance with MPEP § 2173.05(i) (‘If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims.’) and In re Johnson, 558 F.2d [1008,] 1018 [(CCPA 1977)] (‘It is for the inventor to decide what bounds of protection he will seek.’).”). Omitting something Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 5 from the Specification -- here, additional forms of cooling -- does not provide a reason to exclude it. Appellant next argues that the negative limitation “is also implied or inherent elsewhere in the specification as filed.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant explains: It is clear that a main purpose of the described method is to re- gasify LNG in such a way that the cold energy stored therein is captured, and in particular, by using LNG to maintain low temperatures in refrigeration units. Accordingly, using an alternate source of cooling would be less efficient as it would reduce the amount of LNG that could be re-gasified, and require additional energy to generate the additional source of cooling. As such, it is clear that, in a preferred implementation, the re- gasification of LNG would be the only source of cooling. Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Spec. 1:11, 3:30–31). Appellant’s argument does not adequately support its conclusion. The Examiner concedes that “having other cooling sources could potentially reduce the amount of LNG being re- gasified.” Ans. 4. However, we agree with the Examiner that this fact does not mean the Specification describes an exclusion of such other cooling sources. See id. (“There could be other sources of cooling to reduce the temperature of the heat transfer medium.”); see also Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1352 (“[A] description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.”). And there are reasons why an additional cooling source could be used as part of Appellant’s described invention. For example, if a refrigeration unit were not being cooled sufficiently by the LNG in the heat exchanger, a supplemental cooling source could be applied to the heat transfer medium. See Spec. 4:24–27 (“[T]he needs of the facility may vary depending upon the type of facility, the season and the cooperation Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 6 one may obtain from companies controlling natural gas distribution networks providing gaseous phase natural gas to other consumers.”). Appellant argues that “an objective is to ‘control and match the usage patterns of LNG with cryogenic energy patterns.’” Appeal Br. 10 (quoting Spec. 3:12–13). Thus, according to Appellant, “[i]f one were to match the amount of LNG that is to be re-gasified with the refrigeration requirements of the refrigeration units a production facility, there would be no need to provide any additional source of refrigeration.” Id. However, just because something is an objective, does not mean it is a feature. In fact, the cited disclosure somewhat cuts against Appellant’s position because it implies that the method might not control and match the usage patterns of LNG with cryogenic energy patterns. Appellant further argues that, in one embodiment, “a facility is described that has ‘substantial cooling needs, but is unable to consume all of the gaseous phase natural gas that is produced.’ (See page 4, lines 29–30.) In other words, . . . excess natural gas is re-gasified from LNG.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that this implies that there would not be any other cooling sources. Id. The Examiner responds that excess gasification of LNG is not inconsistent with the use of supplemental cooling sources. Ans. 4–5 (“The fact that there is excess LNG [being re-gasified] indicates that there is a great amount of thermal load. With or without additional cooling sources, if the heat load exceeds the capacity of other cooling sources, this would still generate excess gasified natural gas.”). The Examiner is correct. Further, an excess of re-gasified natural gas is not merely dependent on the production of re-gasified natural gas; by definition, it is also dependent on the consumption of re-gasified natural gas. Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 7 On reply, Appellant cites Figure 2 of the Specification, which “is an enlarged schematic diagram of the liquid natural gas re-gasification portion of FIG. 1.” Spec. 2:9–10. Appellant argues that “Figure 2 . . . shows the heat transfer medium flow paths” but not additional/supplemental cooling sources. Reply Br. 2–4. This argument does not apprise us of error. As stated above, omitting something from the Specification -- here, additional forms of cooling in Figure 2 -- does not provide a reason to exclude it and, thus, does not support a negative limitation excluding the same. See Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Appellant has not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s written description rejection of claims 8, 9, and 11–13 based on the word “exclusively.” Accordingly, we affirm the rejection. Claim 12 The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1 for the additional reason that the Specification as filed lacks an adequate written description of “the rate of gasification of the liquid natural gas and the rate of flow from the storage vessel being determined by the temperatures being maintained in the more than one refrigeration unit.” Final Act. 3. Appellant argues: [S]upport for this language can be found at page 3, lines 12–13, which states that, in re-gasifying LNG by providing refrigeration, an objective is to “control and match the usage patterns of LNG with cryogenic energy patterns” and at page 3, lines 27–28, which states that, with reference to the coolant stream for each section, “[the] temperature control in each stream is controlled by the circulation flow rate.” A person of ordinary skill would have understood at the time of the invention that the rate of gasification of LNG is determined by the thermal energy that is transferred to the LNG. Based on the specification as Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 8 filed, this occurs in the heat exchanger, which is warmed by heat transfer fluid circulated to the refrigeration units. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner answers this argument by pointing out that Appellant’s first citation regarding “cryogenic energy patterns” does not provide support for the limitation in question because claim 12 is directed to “refrigeration units at above cryogenic temperatures.” Ans. 6 (quoting claim 8, from which claim 12 depends). The Examiner further answers Appellant’s argument by pointing out that Appellant’s second citation regarding “the circulation flow rate” also does not adequately support the limitation in question because “the circulation flow rate” refers to the heat transfer medium, not the flow rate of LNG from the storage vessel. Ans. 6–7. Appellant filed a Reply Brief but it does not rebut or otherwise address the Examiner’s Answer with respect to claim 12. See generally Reply Br. On the record presented, the Examiner has the better position. Accordingly, we additionally affirm the Examiner’s written description rejection of claim 12 based on the limitation “the rate of gasification of the liquid natural gas and the rate of flow from the storage vessel being determined by the temperatures being maintained in the more than one refrigeration unit.” Claim 13 The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1 for the additional reason that the Specification as filed lacks an adequate written description of “the more than one refrigeration units are thermally isolated from each other.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). “[T]he terms ‘isolated’ and ‘thermally’ were not found in the originally filed specification.” Id. Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 9 The Examiner acknowledged that a related term, “insulated,” appears in paragraph 14 of the Specification but only in describing the storage vessel for the LNG. Id. Appellant argues that this limitation is supported by the Specification’s description of “refrigeration units that are maintained at different temperatures,” which “inherently requires (as a person of ordinary skill would have understood at the time of the invention) the refrigeration units to be thermally isolated in order to maintain the different temperatures.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Spec. 2:22–24). Appellant further argues that Figure “1 shows units 48, 50, and 52 being spaced apart, and a person of ordinary skill would have understood that physical separation results in thermal isolation between the refrigeration units.” Id. The Examiner responds that thermal isolation is not inherent to refrigeration units being maintained at different temperatures. Ans. 8 (citing US 2016/0178264 A1). The Examiner further responds that Appellant’s Figure 1 drawing of refrigeration units as separate boxes with spacing therebetween does not support the claimed feature of thermal isolation. Id. at 7–8. Appellant filed a Reply Brief but it does not rebut or otherwise address the Examiner’s Answer with respect to claim 13. See generally Reply Br. On the record presented, the Examiner has the better position. Accordingly, we additionally affirm the Examiner’s written description rejection of claim 13 based on the limitation “the more than one refrigeration units are thermally isolated from each other.” Appeal 2019-006234 Application 12/303,956 10 SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8, 9, 11–13 112 ¶1 Written Description 8, 9, 11–13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation