Ronald Strybos

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 1, 2019

14272684 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

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.
14/272,684 05/08/2014 Ronald STRYBOS Serie 9935 7400
40582 7590 08/01/2019
American Air Liquide
Intellectual Property Department
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
EXAMINER
OQUENDO, CARIB A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3678
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2019 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):
IP-USOffice@airliquide.com
Justin.Murray@airliquide.com
Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RONALD STRYBOS
____________________

Appeal 2018-005951
Application 14/272,684
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, JILL D. HILL, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ronald Strybos (“Appellant”)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 15, and 19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant identifies the Assignee, Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP, as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005951
Application 14/272,684

2
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1 and 15 are pending. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention:
1. A method of maintaining pressure in an
underground salt cavern during transient operation, comprising:
• storing a first compressible fluid hydrogen in said
underground salt cavern,
• determining a safe minimum operating pressure (Pmin),
and a safe maximum operating pressure (Pmax) for said
underground salt cavern necessary to maintain salt cavern
integrity,
• measuring the pressure (Pact), of said underground salt
cavern,
• removing at least a portion of said first compressible
fluid from said underground salt cavern,
• concurrently, introducing a flow of an incompressible
fluid into said underground salt cavern,
wherein the flow of said incompressible fluid is controlled
such that Pmin < Pact< Pmax,
wherein the minimum operating pressure (Pmin) is between
0.3 and 0.35 psi per foot of depth to a last cemented pipe casing
shoe, and
wherein the maximum operating pressure (Pmax) is
between 0.8 and 0.85 psi per foot of depth to the last cemented
pipe casing shoe,
wherein said underground salt cavern has a storage
capacity equal to or greater than 1 billion standard cubic feet.

REJECTION
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hindle (GB 2460550 A, pub. Dec. 9, 2009) and Kerry L.
DeVries et al., Cavern Roof Stability for Natural Gas Storage in Bedded
Salt, Topical Report RSI-1829 (2005) (hereinafter “DeVries”). Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-005951
Application 14/272,684

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s invention is directed to storage of high pressure gases
“such as but not limited to nitrogen, air, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, helium,
and argon.” Spec. 2:1–3; see id. at 1:8–2:26. Appellant discloses that an
underground storage volume 102 can contain an incompressible fluid 104
and a compressible fluid 103 (the high pressure gas), and a separate conduit
for each fluid can be provided. Spec. 5:27–6:5. A safe operating pressure
range, gradient, and a safe ingress/egress flow rate is determined for the
underground storage volume, although the parameters for selection are not
set forth. Spec. 6:13–7:4. Certain exemplary minimum (Pmin) and maximum
(Pmax) storage volume pressures are disclosed, although the pressures are not
described as being specific to a gas or type of storage volume. Spec. 2:30–
3:12. In the embodiment of Appellant’s Figure 2, a second compressible
fluid 108 can be introduced into incompressible fluid 104 within the storage
volume, as a gas lift fluid 109 to decrease density of the stored liquid, which
assists in initial removal of gas from the cavern. Spec. 5:17–25, 7:6–11.
Although Appellant’s Specification mentions hydrogen as a type of
gas that could be stored, and also mentions salt caverns as types of storage
volume, the only disclosure directing storage of hydrogen specifically is in
originally-filed dependent claims 4 and 18. Spec 8:18, 10:20. Similarly, the
only disclosure of salt caverns specifically is in originally-filed dependent
claims 2 and 16. Spec. 8:15–16, 10:17–18. Appellant’s Specification does
not disclose that hydrogen, or salt caverns, or the combination thereof,
presents particular challenges or requires adjustment of the safe operating
pressure range, gradient, or flow rate. During prosecution, independent
Appeal 2018-005951
Application 14/272,684

4
claims 1 and 15 were narrowed to include the limitation of storing hydrogen
in an underground salt cavern.
The Examiner finds that Hindle discloses the claimed invention,
including storage of a gas in an underground salt cavern, but does not
disclose (1) the gas being hydrogen, (2) a minimum operating pressure
between 0.3 and 0.35 psi per foot of depth to the last cemented pipe casing
shoe, (3) a maximum operating pressure between 0.8 and 0.85 psi per foot of
depth to the last cemented pipe casing shoe, or (4) the salt cavern having a
storage capacity equal to or greater than 1 billion standard cubic feet. Final
Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds, however, that DeVries discloses salt caverns
storing gas and having a minimum operating pressure 0.3 psi per foot of
depth to the last cemented casing shoe, and a maximum operating pressure
of 0.85 psi per foot of depth to the last cemented pipe casing shoe. Id. at 3
(citing DeVries, p. 83, ¶ 2).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Hindle’s method “to include the maximum and minimum operating pressure
as taught by DeVries, since such modification would provide pressure limits
dependent on the casing shoe depth.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner also
concludes that “it is old and well known in the art to store compressible
fluids such as hydrogen, natural gas, carbon dioxide, etc. Therefore, a
person skilled in the art would have known to use the method disclosed
above to store many different compressible fluids.” Id. at 3, 5 ((“While
there is a difference in the type of gas being stored, the methods of storing
‘natural gas, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen’ are very similar.”) (citing
Ingersoll ¶ 33 (US 2015/0125210 A1, pub. May 7, 2015) as evidence of a
skilled artisan’s knowledge)). The Examiner lastly concludes, regarding the
Appeal 2018-005951
Application 14/272,684

5
one billion standard cubic foot storage volume of the salt cavern, that it is an
“obvious matter of design choice to change the size, shape, or capacity of a
salt cavern, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in
the size of a component.” Id. at 3–4 (citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA
1955) (A change in size is generally recognized a being within the level of
ordinary skill in the art.). According to the Examiner, a skilled artisan
“would have look for a salt cavern with the size and rock formation
properties capable of storing a desire amount of hydrogen.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner states, in the Advisory Action of September 8, 2017,
that “there is a difference between storing hydrogen and storing any other
gas,” but finds, regarding the understanding of a skilled artisan, that
Ingersoll provides an example of “using the same method for storing
different gases such as hydrogen and natural gas.” Advisory Act.
Continuation Sheet (citing Ingersoll ¶ 33).
Appellant argues the claims as a group, and we select independent
claim 1 as representative. Claims 5, 15, and 19 stand or fall with claim 1.
Although not explicitly summarized in the Appeal Brief, Appellant’s
argument appears to be that the Examiner erred in concluding that “it is old
and well known in the art to store compressible fluids such as hydrogen,
natural gas, carbon dioxide, etc. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would
have known to use the method [and structure of the combination of Hindle
and DeVries] to store many different compressible fluids.” Final Act. 3, 5
(“While there is a difference in the type of gas being stored, the methods of
storing ‘natural gas, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen’ are very similar.”).
Appellant also takes issue with the Examiner’s reliance on Ingersoll to refute
Appellant’s allegation that a skilled artisan would not have known to store
Appeal 2018-005951
Application 14/272,684

6
hydrogen in a salt cavern after considering the disclosures of Hindle and
DeVries. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 6–7.
In arguing against the rejection, Appellant contends that (1)
“hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element within the periodic table of
elements,” (2) making permeation “a problem with highly compressed
hydrogen that is not a problem with gases with much larger molecules (such
as natural gas, air, or carbon dioxide),” such that (3) “a person skilled in the
art of hydrogen storage would have known that there is a significant
difference between storing ‘natural gas or carbon dioxide’ and storing
hydrogen gas.” Appeal Br. 6–7 (citing Oates ’476 (US 8,690,476 B2, iss.
Apr. 8, 2014) and Oates ’618 (9,718,618 B2, is. Aug. 1, 2017)). Appellant
further contends that Ingersoll fails to establish “an equivalence between
hydrogen and other potential stored gases.” Id. at 9. Thus, according to
Appellant, high pressure gases are not interchangeable “with respect to salt
cavern storage.” Id. at 8.
Regarding Ingersoll, the Examiner contends that the rejection’s
reliance thereon is proper, because it is provided as “evidence to support the
Official Notice [of a skilled artisan’s knowledge] in the prior office action
that was rebutted in Appellant remarks.” Ans. 3 (citing MPEP
§ 2144.03(D)) (“If the Examiner adds a reference in the next Office action
after applicant’s rebuttal, and the newly added reference is added only as
directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge
finding, and it does not result in a new issue or constitute a new ground of
rejection, the Office action may be made final.”). The Examiner responds
that Ingersoll is cited to establish that (1) it was well known “to store
Appeal 2018-005951
Application 14/272,684

7
hydrogen in salt caverns.” Ans. 4, see Ingersoll ¶¶ 5 (salt cavern), 33
(hydrogen), 35 (hydrogen), 40 (salt cavern).
Regarding Oates ’476, the Examiner acknowledges its teaching that
“hydrogen escapes salt cavern easier than other gases therefore it needs a
different method,” but considers Oates ’476 to provide additional evidence
that a skilled artisan would have known how to store hydrogen “by
maintaining a maximum and minimum operating pressure [for] cavern
stability (col. 5, line 35–40) very similar to the method taught by Hindle.”
Advisory Act. 1.
We agree with the Examiner that Ingersoll was properly introduced to
rebut Appellant’s argument that a skilled artisan would not have thought to
store hydrogen in the salt cavern of the combination of Hindle and DeVries.
We also agree with the Examiner that Ingersoll establishes that salt caverns
are known to store gases such as air, natural gas, hydrogen, helium, argon,
etc.
Ingersoll discloses manufacturing underground storage (i.e., caverns)
to store compressed gas (such as air, natural gas, hydrogen, helium, and
argon). Ingersoll ¶¶ 33, 36. The caverns “may be constructed to any desired
length (e.g., about 100 m to about 1 km or more) and cross-sectional area
(e.g., an effective diameter from about 1 m to about 10 m or more) suitable
for a particular storage application. Id. ¶ 39. While controlling pressure in
the caverns is disclosed, including “structural concerns due to over
pressuring or under pressuring, or structural concerns due to relatively high
rates of pressure change,” along with an interdependence of cavern depth
and cavern pressure, Ingersoll does not disclose any specific minimum and
Appeal 2018-005951
Application 14/272,684

8
maximum pressure amounts, or link pressure to the type of gas. Id. ¶¶ 62,
63, and 68–72.
Oates ’476 recognizes that hydrogen storage is challenging because
hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element. Oates ’487, 1:56–63. Oates
’476 discloses setting pressure to create a permeation barrier 206 to
minimize hydrogen leakage from a salt cavern 3. Id. at 2:42–48. Oates ’618
discloses suppressing contamination of hydrogen 4 within the salt cavern 3
by cooling the hydrogen. Id. at 6:7–33.
We are not persuaded by Appellant that Oates ’476 and Oates ’618
establish that a skilled artisan would not have thought to store hydrogen in
the salt cavern of the combination of Hindle and DeVries. To the contrary,
Oates ’476 is concerned with improving existing methods of storing
hydrogen in salt caverns, rather than teaching away from such storage. See
Oates ’476, 1:16–2:12. Further, Appellant’s own Specification discusses
storage of high pressure gases in salt caverns generally, including “such as
but not limited to nitrogen, air, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, helium, and
argon” (Spec. 2:1–3), which appears to directly refute its argument that “it is
neither old nor well known in the art that with respect to salt cavern storage,
[high pressure] gasses are interchangeable” (Appeal Br. 8).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in determining that “[w]hile there is a difference in the type of gas
being stored, the methods of storing ‘natural gas, carbon dioxide, and
hydrogen’ are very similar,” or in concluding that it would have been
obvious to a person skilled in the art to have used the method and structure
of the combination of Hindle and DeVries “to store many different
compressible fluids,” including hydrogen. Final Act. 3, 5. We are not
Appeal 2018-005951
Application 14/272,684

9
persuaded of Examiner error in the outstanding rejection. We sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Claims 5, 15, and 19 fall with claim 1.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 5, 15, and 19 as unpatentable
over Hindle and DeVries.
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