Ex Parte Davoine et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2018

12991350 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018)

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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
S 2007/13-PCT-bco 8040
EXAMINER
WALCK, BRIAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1736
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/991,350 11/05/2010
73673 7590 03/12/21
Solvay America, Inc.
c/o Intellectual Assets Management
3737 Buffalo Speedway Ste. 800
Houston, TX 77098-3701
Perrine Davoine
03/12/2018 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):
iamnafta@ solvay.com
tara.laposa@solvay.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PERRINE DAVOINE,
FRANCIS M. COUSTRY, JEAN-PAUL DETOURNAY,
and KURT ALLEN
Appeal 2017-002336
Application 12/991,350
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-22 of
Application 12/991,350 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(March 26, 2015). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
1 Solvay (Societe Anonyme) is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2017-002336
Application 12/991,350
BACKGROUND
The ’350 Application describes a method for joint production of
sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate from trona ore. Spec. 1. Trona
ore is a mineral that contains about 90-95% sodium sesquicarbonate
(Na2C03#NaHC03*2H20). Id. The trona ore is processed to remove
insoluble material, organic matter and other impurities to recover the
valuable alkali contained therein. Id. The most valuable alkali produced
from trona ore is sodium carbonate, which is used in the glass-making
industry and for the production of baking soda, detergents, and paper
products. Id. at 1-2.
Current methods for the joint production of sodium carbonate and
sodium bicarbonate do not work well when the ore contains high levels of
impurity, especially sodium chloride. Id. at 2-3. The method described in
the ’350 Application is said to improve the efficiency of sodium bicarbonate
production from the trona ore. Id.
Claims 1,11, and 22 are representative of the ’350 Application’s
claims and are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix.
1. A process for the joint production of sodium carbonate
and sodium bicarbonate crystals comprising:
■ dissolving in water a solid powder derived from sodium
sesquicarbonate, said solid powder having a mean
particle diameter comprised between 0.1 and 10 mm;
■ introducing the resulting water solution into a
crystallizer, wherein a first water suspension comprising
sodium carbonate crystals is produced;
■ subjecting the first water suspension to a separation, in
order to obtain crystals comprising sodium carbonate on
the one hand and a mother liquor on the other hand; and
■ taking a part of the mother liquor out of the crystallizer
and putting it into contact, in a gas liquid contactor, with
2
Appeal 2017-002336
Application 12/991,350
a gas comprising carbon dioxide, in order to produce a
second water suspension comprising sodium bicarbonate
crystals, which are separated and dried so as to make a
reagent powder comprising said sodium bicarbonate
crystals, wherein the mother liquor which is taken out of
the crystallizer contains at least 175 g/kg of sodium
carbonate and at least 10 g/kg of sodium chloride.
Appeal Br. 35.
11. A process for treating a gas containing nitrous pollutants,
according to which the reagent powder comprising sodium
bicarbonate crystals obtainable by the process according to
claim 1 is injected in the gas, the pollutants react with the
reagent and the product of the reaction is separated from the
gas, wherein the reagent powder comprising sodium
bicarbonate crystals, wherein the sodium bicarbonate crystals
contain Na2SC>4 in an amount less than 0.1 g/kg Na2SC>4,
contain NaCl in an amount less than 1 g/kg NaCl, and contain
Si in an amount from 0.5 to 5G/kg Si counted as silica.
Id. at 36.
22. A process for the joint production of sodium carbonate
and sodium bicarbonate crystals, comprising:
■ dissolving in water a solid powder derived from sodium
sesquicarbonate, said solid powder having a mean
particle diameter comprised between 0.1 and 10 mm;
■ introducing the resulting water solution into a
crystallizer, wherein a first water suspension comprising
sodium carbonate crystals is produced; subjecting the
first water suspension to a separation, in order to obtain
crystals comprising sodium carbonate on the one hand
and a mother liquor on the other hand; and
■ taking a part of the mother liquor out of the crystallizer
and putting it into contact, in a gas liquid contactor, with
a gas comprising carbon dioxide, in order to produce a
second water suspension comprising sodium bicarbonate
crystals, which are separated and dried so as to make a
reagent powder comprising said sodium bicarbonate
crystals, wherein the mother liquor which is taken out of
3
Appeal 2017-002336
Application 12/991,350
the crystallizer contains at 175 g/kg of sodium carbonate,
at least 10 g/kg sodium chloride, and at least 4 g/kg of
sodium sulfate.
Id. at 38.
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ceylan2 and Sproul.3 Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fagiolini4 as evidenced by the FMC Technical
Data Sheet for Sodium Bicarbonate.5 Final Act. 6.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. In rejecting claims 1-3, 5-8, and 13-22, the Examiner
found that Ceylan describes or suggests the limitations of independent claim
1 except that the source of the water solution in Ceylan is an aqueous
solution derived from solution mining trona ore rather than originating from
“dissolving in water a solid powder derived from sodium sesquicarbonate.”
Final Act. 4. The Examiner also found that Sproul does describe a sodium
carbonate monohydrate crystallization process that uses an aqueous solution
of calcined trona ore as its starting material. Id. The Examiner further
2 US 2006/0182675 Al, published August 17, 2006.
3 US 3,869,538, issued March 4, 1975.
4 US 6,171,567 Bl, issued January 9, 2001.
5 FMC Corp, Technical Data: Sodium Bicarbonate USP Coarse Granular
No. 5 (August 2005).
4
Appeal 2017-002336
Application 12/991,350
found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded Sproul’s
aqueous solution of crushed calcined trona as interchangeable with the liquid
produced by solution mining trona ore in the sodium carbonate monohydrate
crystallization process. Id. at 4-5.
The Examiner also stated:
Regarding the instantly claimed concentration ranges of
claims 1, 4-6 and 13-18, 21 and 22, generally, differences in
concentration or temperature will not support the patentability
of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is
evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is
critical. “[WJhere the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 U.S.P.Q. 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require
little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill
in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of
element concentrations in the mother liquid and resulting
sodium bicarbonate crystals that would result in sodium
bicarbonate crystals meeting the purity requirements for
whatever task the sodium bicarbonate crystals are ultimately
employed in.
Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that the rejection of these claims should be reversed.
Appeal Br. 17-30.
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness because the combination of Ceylan and Sproul
does not describe or suggest drying the sodium bicarbonate crystals to make
a reagent powder as claimed in independent claims 1,21, and 22. Id. at 18-
19.
The Examiner relies upon Ceylan as describing this step. Final
Act. 3—4. As the Examiner acknowledges, see id. at 4, Ceylan describes
5
Appeal 2017-002336
Application 12/991,350
calcining the sodium bicarbonate produced in its process. The Examiner
asserts that this would inherently dry the sodium bicarbonate powder. Id.
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s analysis. Ceylan states that
the sodium bicarbonate produced in its process is calcined to yield light soda
ash. Ceylan 45 (“The filtrate (422) is disposed as the final purge and the
sodium bicarbonate crystals (421) are sent to the calcination process (430) in
order to carry out the light soda ash production (431).”). According to
Appellants, “[ljight soda ash is well known to be of high purity in sodium
carbonate and is not sodium bicarbonate.” Reply Br. 8. This is consistent
with readily available information. E.g., Material Safety Data Sheet:
Sodium Carbonate, Anhydrous (FMC December 19, 2008) (available at
http://www.famell.com/datasheets/1490830.pdf); Tata Chemicals Ltd., Light
Soda Ash Specifications (available at
http://www.tatachemicals.com/upload/pdf/light_soda_ash.pdf). In view of
the foregoing, the Examiner’s speculation, see Answer 7-8, that the
calcining process must result in a powder that includes at least trace amounts
of sodium bicarbonate is unconvincing.
On the record before us, the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1,21, and 22 are
unpatentable over the combination of Ceylan and Sproul. We, therefore,
reverse the rejection of those claims and of the claims dependent therefrom.
Rejection 2. Independent claim 11 is directed to a process for
treating a gas containing nitrous pollutants with a reagent powder
comprising sodium bicarbonate crystals which contain, inter alia. Si in an
6
Appeal 2017-002336
Application 12/991,350
amount from 0.5 to 5 g/kg Si counted as silica. In rejecting claim 11, the
Examiner found:
Regarding claims 10-12, Fagiolini discloses a process for
treating a gas containing HC1 and SO2 wherein a reagent
powder comprising >99% sodium bicarbonate is injected in the
gas, the pollutants react with the reagent and the product of the
reaction is separated from the gas (Fagiolini, column 4, lines
30-52 and claim 1).
Regarding the concentration set forth in instant claim[s]
10-12, >99% sodium bicarbonate still contains trace amounts of
insoluble [material] (i.e.[,] silica), sodium chloride and sodium
sulfate as evidenced by the FMC Technical Data for Sodium
Bicarbonate of 99% purity. Fagiolini discloses that the sodium
bicarbonate is at least 99% pure and the remainder can
comprise other impurities commonly found in commercial
sodium bicarbonate (i.e. [,] silica, sodium chloride and sodium
sulfate) (Fagiolini, column 4, lines 30-52 and claim 1), which
overlaps the instantly claimed composition ranges.
Final Act. 6-7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Fagiolini as evidenced by the FMC
Technical Data renders claims 10-12 obvious. Appeal Br. 30-33. As
Appellants argue, Fagiolini is silent regarding the amount of silica in the
sodium bicarbonate used in its process. The FMC Technical Data merely
states that the sodium bicarbonate passes the USP and FCC standards for the
presence of insoluble substances. The substances are not identified as silica,
and even if they were, the FMC Technical Data does not establish that the
amount of insoluble material present would fall within the range set forth in
claim 11.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that, on the record before us,
the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that
7
Appeal 2017-002336
Application 12/991,350
Fagiolini describes or suggests the use of the sodium bicarbonate comprising
between 0.5 to 5 g/kg Si as silica. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of
claims 10-12.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-
3, 5-8, and 10-22 of the ’350 Application.
REVERSED
8