Ex Parte Chewter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 6, 2015

12301169 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2015)

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. 12/301,169 12/09/2008 Leslie Andrew Chewter TS1798 (US) 6145 23632 7590 03/06/2015 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAM M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1772 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/06/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LESLIE ANDREW CHEWTER, MICHIEL JOHANNES FRANCISCUS MARIA VERHAAK, and JEROEN VAN WESTRENEN 1 ____________ Appeal 2013-004905 Application 12/301,169 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Powers (WO 01/81280 A1) in view of Martens (WO 03/020667 A1). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a method of preparing propylene from a hydrocarbon feed comprising C6 olefins wherein the hydrocarbon feed is 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Shell Oil Company. Br. 2. Appeal 2013-004905 Application 12/301,169 2 contacted with a one-dimensional zeolite having 10-membered ring channels and a silica to alumina ratio of between 10 to 200. Spec. Abstract. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention: 1. A process for the preparation of propylene from a hydrocarbon feed, wherein the hydrocarbon feed is a hydrocarbon feed containing more than 80 wt% olefins, based on the total amount of hydrocarbons present, and comprising more than 20% w/w C6 olefins, based on the total amount of hydrocarbons present, and wherein the hydrocarbon feed is contacted with a one-dimensional zeolite having 10-membered ring channels and a silica to alumina ratio (SAR) in the range from 10 to 200, wherein at least 50% w/w of the total amount of zeolite used is zeolite in the hydrogen form, wherein the feed is cracked to form propylene. Independent claim 10 similarly claims “[a] process for the preparation of propylene from a hydrocarbon feed, wherein the hydrocarbon feed is a hydrocarbon feed containing more than 80 wt% C6 olefins.” Appellants argue the patentability of the claims as a group, relying on their argument for independent claim 1 for independent claim 10 and all dependent claims. 2 Br. 3–4. We decide this appeal based on claims 1 and 10. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). OPINION We refer to the Examiner’s Answer for a complete statement of the rejection. Ans. 3–4. Appellants’ arguments are directed to the requirement that the “hydrocarbon feed contains more than 80 wt% olefins including more than 20 wt% C6 olefins” for claim 1 and “more than 80 wt% C6 [sic] 2 Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Final Office Action (mailed April 24, 2012), the Appeal Brief (filed September 21, 2012), and the Answer (mailed October 24, 2012). Appeal 2013-004905 Application 12/301,169 3 olefins” for claim 10. App. Br. 3. Therefore, we likewise focus our discussion on the required olefinic content of the hydrocarbon feed. The Examiner finds that Powers discloses a process for producing propylene from an olefinic hydrocarbon feed according to the claims except that it “does not specifically disclose that the feed contains more than 20 % C6 olefins, or more than 80 [%] w/w C6 olefins.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Martens teaches a cracking process for producing propylene wherein a feed stream comprises pentenes or hexenes. Id. (citing Martens Abstract, Example I, Table I). Example 1 of Martens teaches “[s]eparate feeds of butenes, pentenes and hexenes” (Martens 18, l. 20) and “that a feed of pentene or hexene has a higher selective [sic] to propylene compared to butane [sic] feed” (Ans. 4). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the process of Powers by utilizing a feed stream comprising more than 80 wt. % C6 olefins to produce propylene. Ans. 4. Appellants argue that Martens “Example 1 is directed to an experiment in which pure streams of butenes, pentenes and hexenes were contacted with various zeolite catalysts in order to determine their selectivity to various olefins. This was not a feed stream that would be utilized in a commercial process.” Br. 3. Appellants argue that Powers “prefers to use a hydrocarbon stream that consists essentially of C4 and/or C5 olefins” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not use a pure stream of hexenes in Powers’ process to produce polypropylene. Id. We find Appellants’ arguments without persuasive merit because it does not address the Examiner’s relied-on motivation to use a feed stream Appeal 2013-004905 Application 12/301,169 4 comprising more than 80 wt. % C6 olefins in order to optimize production of propylene. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (“[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention . . . can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”) Further, we find there is no persuasive evidence supporting Appellants’ arguments. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument . . . cannot take the place of evidence.”). Accordingly, on this record, we affirm the ground of rejection of claims 1–17 over Powers and Martens under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1–17. Accordingly, the Primary Examiner’s decision 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)(1). AFFIRMED sl