Ex Parte Angelides et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

13698377 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 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.
13/698,377 12/13/2012 Christos Odyssea Angelides TH 3998 USA P 1714
23632 7590
SHELL OIL COMPANY
P O BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
EXAMINER
NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2017 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOS ODYSSEA ANGELIDES
and BRADLEY DOUGLAS MORELLO1
Appeal 2016-001316
Application 13/698,377
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and ELIZABETH M.
ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—4, 6, and 8. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a process of removing
nitrous oxide (N2O) from a gas stream contaminated with N2O.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Shell Oil Company (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-001316
Application 13/698,377
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A process for the removal of nitrous oxide (N2O) from
a gas stream containing a contaminating concentration of
nitrous oxide, wherein said process comprises:
(a) passing said gas stream through a heat transfer zone
containing a heat transfer material of a high heat capacity
whereby heat is transferred from said heat transfer material to
said gas stream to thereby provide a heated gas stream;
(b) passing said heated gas stream to a reaction zone
containing a N2O decomposition catalyst that provides for the
decomposition of nitrous oxide and yielding therefrom a gas
stream having a reduced concentration of nitrous oxide;
(c) passing said gas stream having said reduced
concentration of nitrous oxide to a second reaction zone
containing a second N2O decomposition catalyst wherein
nitrous oxide is decomposed to yield a gas stream having a
further reduced concentration of nitrous oxide; and
(d) passing said gas stream having said further reduced
concentration of nitrous oxide to a second heat transfer zone
containing a second heat transfer material of a second high heat
capacity whereby heat is transferred from said gas stream
having said further reduced concentration of nitrous oxide to
said second heat transfer material to thereby provide a cooled
gas stream:;
(e) after a period of time, reversing the flow of said gas
stream by ceasing said passing steps (a), (b), (c), and (d);
(f) passing said gas stream to said second heat transfer
zone whereby heat is transferred from said second heat transfer
material to said gas stream to thereby provide a second heated
gas stream;
(g) passing said second heated gas stream to said
second reaction zone wherein nitrous oxide is decomposed and
yielding therefrom a second gas stream having a second
reduced concentration of nitrous oxide;
(h) passing said second gas stream having said second
reduced concentration of nitrous oxide to a third reaction zone
containing a further N2O decomposition catalyst wherein
nitrous oxide is decomposed and yielding therefrom a third gas
2
Appeal 2016-001316
Application 13/698,377
stream having a third further reduced concentration of nitrous
oxide; and
(i) passing said third gas stream having said third further
reduced concentration of nitrous oxide to a third heat transfer
zone whereby heat is transferred from said third gas stream
having said third further reduced concentration of nitrous oxide
to thereby provide a third cooled gas stream, wherein said third
reaction zone is different from the reaction zone and second
reaction zone and said third heat transfer zone is different from
the heat transfer zone and second heat transfer zone.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in
rejecting the appealed claims:
Chaouki et al., US 5,941,697 Aug. 24, 1999
Hotta US 2007/0292334 Al Dec. 20, 2007
Pieterse et al., US 2008/0044334 Al Feb. 21, 2008
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:2
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hotta in view of Chaouki. Claim 5 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotta in view of Chaouki and
Pieterse. Claims 1 and 4—6 stand provisionally rejected on the grounds of
obviousness-type double patenting over claim 3 of copending Application
No. 13/574,807.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner, we determine that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient
2 A previously presented rejection of the appealed claims under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement is withdrawn and no longer maintained by the
Examiner (Ans. 12).
3
Appeal 2016-001316
Application 13/698,377
to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections for
substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office Action (Ans. 2—10; Final Act.
2—5, 7—13).3 We offer the following for emphasis only.
Concerning the Examiner’s first stated rejection, Appellants argue the
rejected claims together as a group and do not present separate arguments
for dependent claims 4—6 and 8 (App. Br. 4—5). Moreover, Appellants rely
on the argument presented against the Examiner’s first stated (base)
rejection for the separate rejection of claim 5 urging that the additionally
applied reference applied against claim 5 does not cure the deficiency of the
base rejection without presenting further argument addressing the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 5 based on the limitations added by
claim 5 (App. Br. 5).
Consequently, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which
we decide this appeal as to the Examiner’s base rejection, and which
decision based on claim 1 is also dispositive for the Examiner’s separate
rejection of claim 5.
3 We do not reach the provisional obviousness-type double rejection
of claims 1 and 4—6 over claim 3 of copending Application No. 13/574807.
This is because our affirmance of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is dispositive for all claims on appeal. Cf. Beloit
Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (having decided a
single dispositive issue, the ITC was not required to review other matters
decided by the presiding officer).
4
Appeal 2016-001316
Application 13/698,377
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s rationale(s) for combining
the teachings of Hotta and Chaouki. Rather, Appellants argue that the
Examiner “erred in the conclusion that the first reaction zone is equivalent to
the third reaction zone of the instant claim.” (App. Br. 5). Appellants urge
this is because the claimed third reaction zone is a separate zone that is
different than the reaction zone (first reaction zone) and the second reaction
zone and wherein the claimed three reaction zone method wherein the first
reaction zone and the third reaction zone are distinct zones can solve a
problem concerning untreated gases exiting the system during flow reversal
that disadvantages a process using only two reaction zones (id.).
However, Appellants’ argument addresses only one of two alternative
bases for the Examiner’s obviousness holding. Appellants fail to address the
Examiner’s finding that Chaouki does in fact teach a third reaction zone that
is different from the first and second reaction zones. (Ans. 12—13 (citing
Chaouki, Figs. 4—5, col. 8,11. 62—67, col. 9,11. 1—10); see Final Act. 8—9, 17;
see Ans. 2—10).4
Consequently, Appellants have not identified harmful error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections by the argument presented.
4 Arguments that may have been presented in the Appeal Brief but were not
so presented are waived. Consequently, we do not consider the additional
argument presented for the first time in the Reply Brief concerning the
Examiner’s determination as to three reactor processes that the applied prior
art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. This is so
because the Examiner presented several bases for furnishing a third reactor,
as an option, prior to the filing of the Appeal Brief and these bases founded
in the prior art as advanced by the Examiner that would have suggested a
three reactor method corresponding to Appellants’ claimed method are not
particularly contested in the Appeal Brief. (Final Act. 8—9, 17).
5
Appeal 2016-001316
Application 13/698,377
It follows that we affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is 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
6