Ex Parte Davoine et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 201812991350 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation