Sivert Vist et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 16, 2019

13580982 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 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.
13/580,982 11/01/2012 Sivert Vist 0312-0136PUS1 6040
127226 7590 08/16/2019
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
MENGESHA, WEBESHET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2019 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SIVERT VIST, TORE LØLAND, MORTEN SVENNING,
and SILJA ERIKSSON GLYSETH
____________

Appeal 2018-007130
Application 13/580,982
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 21–27, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Nov. 7, 2017), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 2,
2018), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Aug. 24, 2012), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 2, 2018) and Non-Final Office
Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed Oct. 7, 2016).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is “STATOIL
PETROLEUM ASA.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007130
Application 13/580,982

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “is related to a method for start-up of a
liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant, and a corresponding LNG plant.”
Spec. 1, ll. 3–4.
Claim 21, reproduced below, is the only independent claim on appeal
and is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
21. A method for operation of a liquefied natural gas
(LNG) plant, wherein the plant comprises:
an inlet for receiving natural gas;
a CO2 removal unit;
a drying and mercury-removal unit;
a pre-cooling or refrigeration unit;
a liquefaction unit;
an end flash or N2 stripping unit; and
an LNG storage tank, wherein natural gas enters at the
inlet, flows along a flow path through the CO2 removal unit, the
drying and mercury-removal unit, the pre-cooling or
refrigeration unit, the liquefaction unit and end flash or N2
stripping unit in turn and is stored as liquefied natural gas in the
LNG storage tank;
an LNG pump connected to the LNG storage tank; and
an LNG vaporizer connected to the LNG pump;
the method comprising the steps of:
removing LNG from the tank;
passing the removed LNG through the LNG pump and the
LNG vaporizer to vaporize the removed LNG so that the
removed LNG is transformed to gas phase;
re-admitting the vaporized LNG to the flow path at a point
between the drying and mercury-removal unit and the pre-
cooling or refrigeration unit, said point being upstream of the
liquefaction unit, so that the LNG passes through the liquefaction
Appeal 2018-007130
Application 13/580,982

3
unit, cooling heat exchangers in the liquefaction unit, and back
into the LNG tank; and
continuing these steps until the heat exchangers in the
liquefaction unit reach a temperature of below -100°C;
wherein the method is carried out during start-up of the
LNG plant, and when the heat exchangers in the liquefaction unit
have reached a temperature of below -100°C, a regular
production process of LNG is carried out.
Claims App’x 1–2.

REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 22, and 24–26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimble et al. (US 2003/0177785 A1,
pub. Sept. 25, 2003) (“Kimble”), Carnell et al. (WO 2010/004300 A1, pub.
Jan. 14, 2010) (“Carnell”), Newton (US 4,675,037, iss. June 23, 1987), and
Turner et al. (US 2010/0186446 A1, pub. July 29, 2010) (“Turner”).
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kimble, Carnell, Newton, Turner, and Martinez et
al. (US 2009/0282865 A1, Nov. 19, 2009) (“Martinez”).

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ contention that the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 21 is in error because the Examiner has not
adequately established that the cited prior art, alone or in combination,
teaches the limitation that “when the heat exchangers in the liquefaction unit
have reached a temperature of below -100°C, a regular production process of
LNG is carried out.” See Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 20.
Appeal 2018-007130
Application 13/580,982

4
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Kimble, as modified by
Carnell’s removing units, “teaches continuing these steps until the heat
exchangers in the liquefaction unit reach a temperature of below -100°C.”
Non-Final Act. 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Kimble[’s] Table
on page 6 discloses stream 36 withdrawn from the liquefaction unit (72) as
being at a temperature of -98.2°C.” Id.; see also Ans. 7. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to repeat the steps “since it has
been shown that repeating a prior art steps [sic] according to known methods
to yield predictable results would only require a routine skill in the art.”
Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 7. Acknowledging that Kimble does not teach
carrying out a regular LNG production process when the heat exchangers
reach -100°C, the Examiner cites to Turner to cure this deficiency. Non-
Final Act. 5–6. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Turner teaches “during
start-up to reduce the temperature of the heat exchanger 166 by, for
example, as much as approximately l.8°F/ minute until a defined
temperature limit is achieved, wherein during start-up of the liquefaction
plant 102, the temperature of the heat exchanger 166 may be monitored as it
incrementally decreases.” Id. at 6. The Examiner also finds that Turner
teaches that “it may be desirable to flow a portion of the product stream 154"
back through the heat exchanger 166 to help bring the plant 102', and
various components thereof, to a steady state operating temperature.” Id.
Kimble discloses a stream entering expander 72 (which the Examiner
interprets as the claimed heat exchanger) at a temperature of -80.6°C and
exiting at a temperature of -98.2°C. Kimble ¶ 54. Even were we to assume
that in order to cool the stream to -98.2°C, the heat exchanger would
inherently have a temperature below -100°C, the Examiner has not
Appeal 2018-007130
Application 13/580,982

5
explained how this teaches continuing the steps of removing, passing and
vaporizing, and re-admitting until that temperature is reached. See Reply
Br. 20. The Examiner also has not provided adequate support or reasoning
that “it has been shown that repeating a prior art steps [sic] according to
known methods to yield predictable results would only require a routine skill
in the art.” Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 7. In other words, the Examiner fails to
explain what has shown, i.e., what supports the contention, that continuing
the steps until the exchanger reaches the desired results would yield
predicable results and what would be those predictable results.
Further, the Examiner does not adequately show how the combination
of Kimble with Newton and/or Turner shows “when the heat exchangers in
the liquefaction unit have reached a temperature of below -100°C, a regular
production process of LNG is carried out.” Claims App’x 2. At best, the
Examiner shows that Newton teaches conditions for start-up and Turner
teaches reducing the temperature of the heat exchanger during start up to
reach and maintain that desired temperature. See Non-Final Act. 5–6;
Ans. 7. But the Examiner does not adequately explain how this teaches
carrying out the regular process when the temperature reaches below a
desired amount. See Reply Br. 20.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 21, 22, and 24–26.
For the rejection of claims 23 and 27, which ultimately depend from
independent claim 21, the Examiner’s additional reliance on Martinez does
not cure the deficiency of the rejection of claim 21. Thus, for the same
Appeal 2018-007130
Application 13/580,982

6
reasons as for claim 21, we also do not sustain the rejection of the dependent
claims 23 and 27.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 21–27 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are REVERSED.

REVERSED