Ex Parte Bras et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12594224 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/594,224 11124/2009 Eduard Coenraad Bras
23632 7590 03/01/2016
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TS8697 US 2174
EXAMINER
MENGESHA,WEBESHET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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 EDUARD COENRAAD BRAS and
DIANA HOOI KHENS OOI
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and MARK A. GEIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eduard Coenraad Bras and Diana Hooi Khens Ooi (Appellants) seek
review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1-5 and 7-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a method for separating one or
more C2+ hydrocarbons from a mixed phase hydrocarbon stream such as
partly vapourised liquefied natural gas (LNG)." Spec. 1, 11. 1--4. Claims 1
and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
1. A method for separating one or more C2+
hydrocarbons from a mixed phase hydrocarbon
stream, the method at least comprising the steps of:
(a) supplying a mixed phase hydrocarbon
feed stream in the form of a partly vapourised
hydrocarbon feed stream, to a first gas/liquid
separator;
(b) separating the hydrocarbon feed stream in
the first gas/liquid separator into a first gaseous
stream from a first outlet, and at least one C2+ liquid
stream;
( c) passing the first gaseous stream through a
compressor to provide a compressed stream; and
( d) cooling the compressed stream in one or
more heat exchangers to provide an at least partly
condensed hydrocarbon product stream;
( e) adding a second gaseous stream to a
stream downstream of the first outlet, wherein the
second gaseous stream comprises boil-off gas
drawn from one or more liquid hydrocarbon storage
tanks;
wherein both the second gaseous stream and
the mixed phase hydrocarbon feed stream are
provided from the same liquid hydrocarbon storage
tank(s).
EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Durr US 4,727,723 Mar. 1, 1988
Thomas US 6,023,942 Feb. 15, 2000
Iwasaki US 6,164,247 Dec. 26, 2000
Cuellar US 2006/0000234 Al Jan. 5, 2006
Patel US 2006/0130520 Al June 22, 2006
2
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Patel and Thomas.
2. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Patel, Thomas, and Durr.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Patel, Thomas, and Durr.
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Patel, Thomas, and Iwasaki.
5. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Patel, Thomas, and Cuellar.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I -The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9,
12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim 1 and do not
separately argue the dependent claims. Br. 4--11. Thus, we address only
claim 1, with claims 2-5, 7-9, 12, and 13 standing or falling with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv) (2012).
A. Limitation ( e) in Claim 1
In limitation ( e ), claim 1 recites "adding a second gaseous stream to a
stream downstream of the first outlet, wherein the second gaseous stream
comprises boil-off gas drawn from one or more liquid hydrocarbon storage
tanks." As to that limitation, the Examiner finds that "Patel teaches sending
a mixed phase LNG stream into a fractionation tower and separating the
stream into a tower overhead stream and tower bottom stream" and "further
3
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
teaches separating the vapor into a lean vapor stream and tower reflux
stream and compress[ing] the lean vapor stream in order to create a high
pressure lean LNG stream" but that "Patel does not explicitly teach adding
the boil-off gas from the LNG tank into the overhead vapor stream (14)."
Final Act. 2-3 (dated Mar. 8, 2013). The Examiner finds, however, that
"Thomas teaches a boil-off gas (18, 120, and 224) resulting from
evaporation of liquefied natural gas from an LNG tank can be added into an
overhead vapor stream." Id. at 3 (citing Thomas, Figs. 1--4). According to
the Examiner, it would have been obvious "to modify Patel['s] overhead
vapor stream by adding the boil-off gas stream from the LNG tank, as
thought by Thomas in order to maximize the recovery of C2+ stream." Id. 1
First, Appellants contend that the Examiner "appears to have used
impermissible hindsight reasoning" by using the claims "as an outline to
reverse engineer a method that would provide the claim features." Br. 4.
In response, the Examiner states that "any judgment on obviousness is
in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning" and
that "so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the
level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does
not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper." Ans. 2-3.
We are not apprised of error based on Appellants' argument.
Although Appellants contend that the Examiner has engaged in hindsight
reconstruction, Appellants do not, with these arguments, persuasively
address the reasoning provided by the Examiner. See Final Act. 3.
1 "C2+" refers to hydrocarbons with two or more carbon atoms.
4
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
Second, Appellants contend that the rejection "fails to provide
sufficient evidence that it would be obvious to try any modification,
including the modification asserted in the Office Action[,] in order to
'maximize the recovery of C2+ stream' because there is no assertion that the
alleged problem of insufficient recovery of C2+ was previously known."
Br. 5 (discussing In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) ). According to Appellants, the Examiner has not set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness because the "prior art of record does not provide
adequate reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
expend the additional time, effort, and resources to modify the methods of
Patel to add the boil-off gas stream from the LNG tank to the overhead
vapor stream." Id. at 5---6. Appellants state, "[ m ]ore specifically, the Office
Action fails to identify any prior art recognizing a problem with insufficient
recovery of C2+." Id. at 6.
In response, the Examiner states that obviousness "may be established
by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the
claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art." Ans. 3. The
Examiner states that "the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does
not have to be expressly stated in the prior art" and that "[a]n implicit
motivation to combine exists ... when the combination of references results
in a product or process that is more desirable ... [b ]ecause the desire to
enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is
universal." Id. at 3--4. According to the Examiner, "[i]n this case, the boil-
off gas resulting from evaporation of liquefied natural gas is combined with
5
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
an overhead vapor stream in order to maximize or enhance the amount of the
product stream including the C2+ stream." Id. at 4. The Examiner states that
to "[m]aximize (take full advantage of or make the most of) the recovery of
C2+ stream does not mean that there is insufficient recovery of C2+." Id. at
5. According to the Examiner, Patel "teaches higher recoveries (which
include the recovery of C2+) are made by increasing the amount of lean
tower reflux stream 26" and thus, "adding the boil-off into Patel's reflux
stream (tower overhead stream 14) will increase the amount of the reflux
stream, which will eventually higher or maximize the recovery of C2+ of the
product stream." Id. (citing Patel ,-r 52).2
For the Examiner's reasons as set forth above, we are not apprised of
error based on Appellants' first set of arguments. Further, we note that
Appellants do not address the rejection as articulated. Here, the Examiner
has not framed the reasoning as avoiding a problem but rather as providing
an alleged benefit from the proposed modification. See Ans. 4--5
("[N]owhere in the office action [does] the [E]xaminer state[] a problem
with insufficient recovery of C2+ or mention [that] the prior art Patel has a
problem with insufficient recovery of C2+."). 3 By not persuasively
addressing the Examiner's reasoning as articulated, Appellants have not
shown error in the relevant findings or the conclusion as to obviousness.
2 Appellants did not file a reply brief.
3 Because the reasoning provided regarding this limitation does not
relate to an alleged "problem" or "need," the situation in In re Omeprazole
Patent Litigation, 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008), is distinguishable. See,
e.g., Br. 5 (citing Omeprazole for the proposition that "a claimed invention
may nevertheless be nonobvious if the problem which had suggested the
modification was not previously known").
6
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
Third, Appellants argue that "[ e ]ven if a problem is known, if the
possible solutions to that problem were not either known or finite, then an
obvious to try rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion of
obviousness." Br. 6. Appellants argue that "the alleged problems of
insufficient recovery of C2+ in Patel could be solved in an infinite variety of
ways." Id. After quoting a discussion in paragraph 52 of Patel as "explicitly
indicat[ing] at least a few alternatives," Appellants contend that "[i]f the
only goal was to 'maximize the recovery of C2+,' any of an infinite number
of modifications could be made to attain such a goal." Id. at 6-7.
In response, the Examiner states that nowhere does "the examiner
state[] a problem with insufficient recovery of C2+ or mention[ that] the
prior art Patel has a problem with insufficient recovery of C2+." Ans. 6
(emphasis omitted).
With these arguments, Appellants do not address the rejection as
articulated, which does not rely on an "obvious to try" rationale. See Final
Act. 2-3. Thus, the alleged failure to provide factual support for that
rationale does not apprise us of error.
Fourth, Appellants argue that providing the stated reasoning "without
any consideration of the effect of such modification on cost, efficiency,
safety, or any other design factors results in the legal conclusion of
obviousness being unsupported by rational underpinning." Br. 7.
Appellants contend that "a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
considered the effects of the proposed modification to Patel and would not
have chosen to make such an irrational modification because of the
deleterious effects that would accompany that modification." Id. at 8.
7
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
In response, the Examiner states, "simply alleging that the effect of
such modification could cause an effect on cost, efficiency, safety, or any
other design factors is not sufficient to overcome the explicit evidence
provided by the rejection and by the response [in the Answer] about the
motivation." Ans. 7. The Examiner states that "[t]he allegations are mere
assertions by the [A]ppellant[s] without any support." Id.
Here, Appellants provide no legal support for the proposition that the
required "articulated reasoning" must consider all possible design
parameters. Moreover, Appellants provide no evidence supporting the
contention that the proposed modification causes "deleterious effects." Br.
8; see In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's
argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.").
Fifth, Appellants argue that "modifying 'Patel['s] overhead vapor
stream by adding the boil-off gas stream from the LNG tank' would not
necessarily 'maximize the recovery of C2+. "' Br. 8. Appellants contend
that, in Thomas, because "the boil off vapor is added to an overhead stream
from a demethanizer column 131" and "[t]he PLNG tank is also downstream
of the demethanizer column 131," "whatever is in the boil off vapor has
been passed through demethanizer column 131 and C2+ has been recovered
from it." Id.
Appellants also contend that "[a]dding the boil off from Patel's LNG
tanks to the overhead stream of Patel necessarily bypasses the fractionation
column 10" such that "no C2+ would be recovered from the boil off gas."
Id. at 8-9. Appellants assert that, "[t]herefore, recovery of C2+ does not
appear to be influenced by Thomas because all happens downstream of the
demethanizer column 131" and that "the proposed modification of Patel
8
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
does not maximize the C2+ recovery as it allows part of the rich LNG (i.e.
the postulated boil off gas from the LNG tanks) to bypass the fractionation
column directly into the lean LNG." Id. at 9. Appellants contend that "if the
stated objective is to 'maximize,' the recovery of C2+, it would not be
attained by the modification proposed" and that "because the modification
proposed in the Office Action is not coupled with a reasonable expectation
of success, there has been no showing of obviousness." Id.
In response, the Examiner states that"[ o ]ne cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references." Ans. 8 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413 (CCPA 1981), In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The
Examiner also states that the "assumption of no C2+ in Thomas['s] boil-off
is incorrect" because "Thomas actually teaches the boil-off stream (120,
224) has []C2+ in it." Id. at 9 (citing Thomas, Tables 4, 5).4 The Examiner
states that "[i]t is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, [that] during
evaporation of a liquefied natural gas there will still be a minimum amount
of C2+ evaporates during the process." Id.
As to the factual issue regarding the composition of the boil-off vapor
in lines 120 and 224 in Thomas, we see no error in the Examiner's position
that Tables 4 and 5 show the presence of C2+. Further, as noted by the
Examiner, this argument attacks Thomas individually because it does not
address the composition of the boil-off gas in the modified device.
4 Although the Examiner cites "Table 5 and 6," given the reference to
elements 120 and 224 and the fact that Thomas only has five tables, we
understand the Examiner to refer to Tables 4 and 5.
9
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
As to whether the proposed modification would increase the recovery
of C2+ over the Patel device, Appellants rely on the premise that, in the
modified device, "[a]dding the boil off from Patel's LNG tanks to the
overhead stream of Patel necessarily bypasses the fractionation column 1 O"
such that "the boil off would not pass through the fractionation column." Br.
8-9. The disclosure in Patel and the rejection as articulated show that to be
incorrect. Figure 7 from Patel is reproduced below:
Figure 7 depicts a "simplified flow diagram of a hydrocarbon recovery
process." Patel i-f 27. If boil-off gas were introduced to overhead vapor
stream 14 shown above, that gas would not necessarily bypass fractionation
column 10; rather, as noted by the Examiner (Final Act. 3), Patel teaches
separating overhead vapor stream 14 into lean vapor stream 17 and tower
reflux stream 18. See Patel i-f 54. Although lean vapor stream 17 is not sent
to fractionation tower 10, tower reflux stream 18 is. See id. ("Tower reflux
stream 18 is pumped by pump 19 and is sent to fractionation tower 10,
preferably as a top feed stream."). Here, the Examiner relies on a discussion
of a tower reflux stream (element 26 in Figure 6 of Patel), to support the
10
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
reasoning that adding boil-off gas to Patel's overhead vapor stream 14 (in
Figure 7) would increase the recovery of C2+. See Ans. 5 (citing Patel i-f 52).
Because Appellants have not shown error in the findings as to the modified
device, we are not apprised of error based on this argument.
B. The "Wherein" Clause in Claim 1
Claim 1 recites "wherein both the second gaseous stream and the
mixed phase hydrocarbon feed stream are provided from the same liquid
hydrocarbon storage tank(s)." For this limitation, the Examiner states that
"Thomas teaches a boil-off gas can be found from an evaporation of
liquefied natural gas inside a storage tank." Final Act. 3 (citing Thomas, col.
5, 11. 65----67). The Examiner also states, "[i]n this case, it would have flown
naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the boil-off gas (of
Thomas, above) could also be found from the LNG tank of Patel and take
advantage of it to do the required process inside the plant instead of wasting
it (e.g., by venting)." Id.
First, Appellants contend to "find no indication that the referenced
LNG tank of Patel produces boil-off gas, and thus assert that modifying the
route of the alleged boil-off gas of Patel is nonsensical." Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner states that "it is well known in the art, since
a liquid natural gas has a boiling point at a temperature of about minus
162 °C, even though the storage tanks are thermally insulated, the boiling
point of liquid natural gas is so low that there is inherently and inevitably a
continuous boil-off of LNG formed inside the tank." Ans. 10.
Here, the Examiner's explanation is sufficient to make out a prima
facie case that the LNG tank of Patel would inherently produce boil-off gas.
11
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
See Jn re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Appellants have not
shown error in that finding.
Second, Appellants contend that the rejection "fails to provide
sufficient evidence that it would be obvious to try any modification,
including the modification asserted in the Office Action" for the reason set
forth by the Examiner "because there is no assertion that the alleged problem
of wasting of boil-off gas in the Patel design was previously known." Br.
10. Appellants argue that, "the Office Action fails to identify any prior art
recognizing a problem with wasting of boil-off gas in the Patel design." Id.
In response, the Examiner states that "venting is given as an example
because it is well known in the art to vent out a boil-off gas from an LNG
tank." Ans. 10. The Examiner also states, "[h]owever, reprocessing of a
boil-off gas from an LNG tank in a liquefaction process is already taught by
Thomas." Id. (previously citing Thomas, col. 3, 11. 6-9; col. 5, 1. 65 - col. 6,
1. 9 for similar finding).
As to the contention that the Examiner must identify an explicit
statement in the prior art supporting the reasoning provided, the Supreme
Court has made clear that the obviousness analysis "need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for [an examiner] can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, Appellants have not shown
error in the Examiner's finding that it was well known to vent boil-off gas
from an LNG tank (Ans. 10) or in the position that avoiding wasting a
resource provides, on the facts presented, a sound reason to modify Patel
(Final Act. 3).
12
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
For the reasons above, we sustain the decision to reject claim 1 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings relied upon by the Examiner.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 12, and 13 fall with claim 1.
Rejection 2 - The rejection of claims 16-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim 16 and do not
argue the dependent claims. Br. 11-12. Thus, we address only claim 16
with claims 17-19 standing or falling with claim 16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
( c )(1 )(iv).
Claim 16 recites, inter alia, "a combiner to combine the second
gaseous stream with a stream downstream of the first outlet of the gas/liquid
separator." The Examiner states that "modified Patel teaches combin[in]g
the second gaseous stream (Thomas, 19) with the first gaseous stream (Patel,
14), but does not explicitly teach combining the two vapor streams inside a
combiner (separator)." Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds, however, that
Durr "teaches [b ]oil-off vapor from the LPG storage tank 6 comprised of
most of the ethane from product stream is combined with other vapors in
separator 4 to form gaseous refrigerant stream 8." Id. (citing Durr, Fig. 4).
As reasoning to modify Patel based on Thomas, the Examiner provides the
same reasoning related to limitation ( e) in claim 1. Compare id. at 3, with
id. at 6. As to modifying Patel and Thomas with Durr, the Examiner states
that it would have been obvious "to combine the second gaseous stream
(Thomas, 19) with the first gaseous stream (Patel, 14) inside separator ( 16
[of Patel]), as taught by Durr in order to provide the necessary phase
separation without increasing number of parts by properly using the
available part (separator 16) in the plant." Id. at 6.
13
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
First, Appellants rely on prior arguments addressing the reasoning to
modify Patel based on Thomas. See Br. 11. For the same reasons set forth
above (see supra Rejection 1 ), those arguments do not apprise us of error.
Second, Appellants contend that the reasoning to modify Patel and
Thomas with Durr is "flawed" because "there is no recognized problem with
necessary phase separation requiring too many parts in the design of Patel or
in the design of Patel as modified." Br. 11-12.
In response, the Examiner states that obviousness "may be established
by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the
claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art." Ans. 11-12.
This argument does not address the rejection as articulated. Here, the
Examiner has not framed the reasoning as avoiding a problem but rather as
providing an alleged benefit from the proposed modification. By not
persuasively addressing the Examiner's reasoning, Appellants have not
shown error in the relevant findings or the conclusion as to obviousness.
For these reasons, we sustain the decision to reject independent claim
16 as unpatentable over the combined teachings relied upon by the
Examiner. Claims 17-19 fall with claim 16.
Rejections 3 and 4 - The rejections of claim 10 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants do not separately argue claims 10 or 11 (Br. 13), which
depend from claim 1. Thus, for the reasons discussed above (see supra
Rejection 1 ), we sustain the decision to reject claims 10 and 11.
14
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
Rejection 5 - The rejection of claims 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and further recites: "the step of: (F)
dividing the at least partly condensed hydrocarbon product stream into a first
at least partly liquid stream and a second at least partly liquid stream." The
Examiner finds that Patel does not teach this but that "Cuellar teaches the
upper section of fractionation tower 21 flows to compressor 19, where it is
compressed and cooled in heat exchanger 12." Final Act. 9. According to
the Examiner, in Cuellar, "[t]he condensed liquid (stream 48b) is then
divided into two portions, streams 52 and 53" wherein "[s]tream 52 is the
methane-rich lean LNG stream and the remaining portion is reflux stream
53." Id. (citing Cuellar i-fi-128, 29, Fig. 3). The Examiner states that it would
have been obvious "to modify the partly condensed hydrocarbon product
stream of Patel into a first partly liquid stream and a second partly liquid
stream wherein the second stream goes back to the separator as taught by
Cuellar in order to absorb[] and condense[] the C2 components and heavier
hydrocarbon components from the vapors rising in the upper rectification
section of the separator." Id.
First, Appellants argue "there was no recognized problem with
absorption and condensing of the C2 components and heavier hydrocarbon
components in the design of Patel or in the design of Patel as modified." Br.
12. Appellants argue that the rejection "fails to provide sufficient evidence
that it would be obvious to try any modification, including the modification
asserted in the Office Action because there is no assertion that the alleged
problem allegedly solved by the modification was previously known." Id.
15
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
The Examiner states that, "[i]n this case, the motivation to combine
the references was found [in] the prior art Cuellar itself." Ans. 13 (citing
Cuellar i-f 29).
We are not apprised of error based on these arguments because
Appellants do not address the rejection as articulated. Here, the Examiner
has not framed the reasoning as avoiding a problem but rather as providing
an alleged benefit from the proposed modification. Further, Appellants have
not shown error in that alleged benefit, which, as noted by the Examiner, is
explicitly provided in Cuellar. Compare Final Act. 9, with Cuellar i-f 29.
Second, Appellants contend that "the alleged problem allegedly
solved by the modification is created by the modification itself' because
[t]he first modification [of Patel based on Thomas] proposes that
a stream from the LNG tank of Patel bypasses the separator 10
in order to maximize C2+, but then the resulting stream is implied
to have a problem with insufficient absorption and condensation
of the C2 components and thus is split before a portion of that
stream passes through a ne\'lv'1y added separator.
Br. 13. Appellants further state that "it seems as though a first modification
is made to provide an alleged advantage and when that alleged advantage is
absent, and disadvantages are apparent, another modification is made to
rectify the deficiency created by the first modification." Id.
With this second set of arguments, Appellants do not address the
rejection as articulated. For reasons similar to those above, the Examiner
has not framed the reasoning as avoiding a problem but rather as providing
an alleged benefit from the proposed modification. Further, for the reasons
above (see supra Rejection 1 ), Appellants have not shown that the "alleged
advantage" provided by modifying Patel with Thomas is "absent." Br. 13.
16
Appeal2014-001339
Application 12/594,224
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claim
14. Because Appellants do not separately argue claim 15 (id.), which
depends from claim 14, we also sustain the decision to reject claim 15.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
17