Ex Parte Chewter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

13727801 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131727,801 12/27/2012 Leslie Andrew CHEWTER
23632 7590 11/25/2016
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.
TS2727(US) 1032
EXAMINER
MCCULLOUGH, ERIC J.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1773
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2016 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 LESLIE ANDREW CHEWTER, SIV AKUMAR SADASIV AN
VIJA Y AKUMARI, and JEROEN VAN WESTRENEN
Appeal2015-007043
Application 13/727,801
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a process for preparing a
xylene-containing product by contacting an oxygenate feedstock, such as
methanol, with a conversion catalyst, such as ZSM-5, under conversion
conditions to form an effluent including, inter alia, olefins, xylene, benzene,
and toluene, and separating xylene from the effluent of the conversion step
to yield a xylene-containing product. At least a portion of an aromatics-
Appeal2015-007043
Application 13/727,801
containing stream separated from the effluent, which aromatics stream
includes benzene and toluene, is recycled to the conversion step.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A process for the preparation of an aromatic product
comprising xylene, which process comprises the steps of:
a. converting an oxygenate feedstock in an oxygenate-to-
olefins conversion system, comprising a reaction zone in which
an oxygenate feedstock is contacted with an oxygenate
conversion catalyst under oxygenate conversion conditions, to
obtain a conversion effluent comprising benzene, toluene,
xylene and olefins;
b. separating at least a portion of the benzene and toluene
from the conversion effluent to form an aromatics containing
stream;
c. separating the olefins from the conversion effluent;
d. separating xylene from the conversion effluent to
produce a xylene product stream; and
e. recycling at least a portion of the aromatics containing
stream to step a).
App. Br. 5.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Bozzano et al.
Claude et al.
N esterenko et al.
Brown et al.
US 7 ,834,227 B2
US 7,883,618 B2
US 2011/0196113 Al
US 8,048,388 B2
2
Nov. 16, 2010
Feb. 8, 2011
Aug. 11, 2011
Nov. 1, 2011
Appeal2015-007043
Application 13/727,801
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bozzano in view of Brown. Claim 8 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bozzano in view of
Brown and Nesterenko. Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Bozzano in view of Brown and Claude.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellants' claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that the Appellants' arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejections. 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. We offer the following
for emphasis only.
Concerning the Examiner's first stated rejection, Appellants argue the
rejected claims together as a group. Also, Appellants do not present
additional arguments against the Examiner's separately stated rejections
involving certain dependent claims. Rather, Appellants rely on the argument
made with respect to the first stated rejection (App. Br. 4). Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we focus in deciding this
appeal.
Appellants argue that the process of Bozanno, which is contended as
being directed to aromatics co-production in a methanol to propylene
production process, is different than Brown's process of manufacturing para-
3
Appeal2015-007043
Application 13/727,801
xylene via a methylation reaction of pygas 1 feedstock over a suitable catalyst
(App. Br. 3). Based thereon, Appellants argue that "it would not have been
obvious to combine their [Bozzano's and Brown's] teachings to arrive at the
present invention, especially in view of the specific teaching in Bozzano to
send the C6 stream to a second reactor for performing transalkylating
reactions" (App. Br. 3).
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejections by this argument for substantially the reasons set
forth by the Examiner (Ans. 2-13; Final Act. 3-10).
In particular, the Examiner has determined without dispute that
Bozzano teaches or suggests a process corresponding to Appellants'
representative claim 1 process but for disclosing the aromatics recycling to
the conversion reaction zone comprising the recycling of an aromatics
stream that includes, inter alia, benzene and toluene (Ans. 3; Final Act. 6).
The Examiner finds that Bozzano teaches or suggests a process for
converting an oxygenate-containing feedstock (i.e., methanol) over a catalyst
to form a product effluent stream that includes xylenes (Cs aromatic), olefins
and other C7 and C6 aromatics, wherein xylenes can be separated from the
effluent (Ans. 3; Final Act. 5--6; Bozzano, col. 3, 11. 5-59; col. 4, 11. 43--67;
col. 5, 11. 20-33; col. 6, 11. 13--62; col. 7, 11. 14--25, 3945). The Examiner
finds that Bozzano teaches that a stream containing C7 aromatics can be
recycled to the conversion reactor (Ans. 3).
1 "[P]ygas is a byproduct of olefin production by steam cracking
hydrocarbons such as naphtha [or] gas oil feedstocks" and contains
aromatics, including benzene and toluene, and non-aromatics (Brown; col. 7,
1. 63 - col. 8, 1. 15).
4
Appeal2015-007043
Application 13/727,801
The Examiner finds that Brown teaches or suggests recycling benzene
and toluene to a methylation reaction zone, in a process substantially similar
to the process of Bozzano wherein Brown's methylation zone substantially
corresponds to the conversion reaction of Bozzano and both processes
substantially employ similar "feed chemicals, reaction catalyst, reaction
conditions, effluents, and similar steps for separating the effluents" (Ans. 4,
8-12). Based thereon, the Examiner reasonably maintains that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recycle at least some of both
toluene and benzene in the process of Bozanno in order to provide for a
higher yield of xylene, a desirable co-product, as taught by Brown (Ans. 4,
10-12; Brown, col. 26, 11. 29-32).
Appellants do not specifically dispute the Examiner's determination
that Bozzano can employ the same ZSM-5 catalyst as employed by Brown
and that Bozzano and Brown use similar feedstocks and overlapping
reaction conditions (Ans. 9-11). In this regard, Appellants acknowledge that
"[ o ]xygenate-to-olefin processes are well described in the art" and that "[i]n
principle, every known OTO [ oxygenate-to-olefins] conversion system and
process can be used in conjunction with the present invention, including
processes known as Methanol-to-Olefins (MtO) and Methanol to Propylene
(MtP)" (Spec. 1, 1. 8; 2, 11. 16-18). Hence, we concur with the Examiner
that Appellants' conclusive argument against the Examiner's proposed
combination of references does not indicate that the skill in the relevant art is
such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to recycle
at least some of an aromatics stream including benzene and toluene to the
oxygenate-to-olefins conversion reaction zone of Bozzano for further
5
Appeal2015-007043
Application 13/727,801
conversion to a desirable xylene co-product as an obvious option as
suggested by Brown.
Consequently, the evidence and argument of record weighs in favor of
the Examiner's obviousness determination. It follows that we shall sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejections.
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