Ex Parte Grootveld et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 16, 201512096299 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2015) 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/096,299 10/20/2008 Gerard Grootveld TS1627US 1493 23632 7590 04/16/2015 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER ROBINSON, RENEE E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1772 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/16/2015 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 GERARD GROOTVELD and GIJSBERT JAN VAN HEERINGEN ____________ Appeal 2013-002925 Application 12/096,299 1 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Shell Oil Company (Appeal Brief filed July 3, 2012, hereinafter “Br.,” 2). Appeal 2013-002925 Application 12/096,299 2 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a process for removing sulfur compounds and carbon dioxide from a hydrocarbonaceous gas stream comprising at least 50% by volume of C1–C4 hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds including hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans (Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 1, ll. 2–8). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 5 of the Appeal Brief as follows: 1. A process for the removal of sulphur compounds and carbon dioxide from a hydrocarbonaceous gas stream comprising at least 50 %v of C1-C4 hydrocarbons and comprising sulphur compounds including hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans, the process comprising the steps of: (a) washing the hydrocarbonaceous gas stream with an aqueous amine washing solution to remove hydrogen sulphide, any carbon dioxide, and part of the mercaptans to obtain a first purified gas stream; (b) passing the first purified gas stream through one or more molecular sieves to further remove mercaptans to obtain a second purified gas stream; (c) contacting the second purified gas stream and a hydrogen stream with a hydrogenation catalyst under hydrogenation conditions to obtain a third purified gas stream; and (d) passing the third purified gas stream through one or more hydrogen sulphide guard beds to obtain purified gas containing less than 5 ppbv of sulphur or sulphur compounds. Appeal 2013-002925 Application 12/096,299 3 THE REJECTION Claims 1–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Van De Graaf 2 and Drnevich 3 (Examiner’s Answer entered August 31, 2012, hereinafter “Ans.,” 3–5; Final Action entered January 5, 2012, hereinafter “Final Act.,” 3–8). DISCUSSION The Examiner found that Van De Graaf describes a process for removing sulfur compounds and carbon dioxide from a hydrocarbonaceous gas stream comprising C1-C4 hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds including hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans, wherein the process comprises steps “(a)” and “(b),” as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 3). The Examiner acknowledged that Van De Graaf does not disclose steps “(c)” and “(d),” as recited in claim 1, or that the purified gas has a sulfur or sulfur compound content of less than 5 ppbv, as required by claim 1 (id. at 3, 4). The Examiner found, however, that Drnevich discloses steps “(c)” and “(d)” to reduce the sulfur content to less than about 0.1 ppmv (id. at 3–4). Based on that finding, the Examiner concluded (id. at 4): It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Van De Graaf by further processing the gas stream according to the steps disclosed by Drnevich, including hydrogenation and sulfur sorption, in order to produce a purified gas stream having a sulfur content less than about 0.1 ppm, thereby preventing 2 PCT International Publication WO 2004/047955 A1 published June 10, 2004. 3 United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0104896 A1 published May 18, 2006. Appeal 2013-002925 Application 12/096,299 4 degradation and poisoning of downstream sulfur-sensitive catalysts. The Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine Van De Graaf and Drnevich (Br. 3–4). Rather, they contend that Drnevich does not disclose or suggest that the sulfur concentration can be reduced to less than 5 ppbv––a sulfur level that is one-twentieth of the sulfur level (0.1 ppmv) described in Drnevich (id. at 3). The Appellants therefore urge that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in the combination of the cited references that would lead one of skill in the art to anticipate that the present invention would result in a sulphur concentration less than 5 ppbv” (id.). The Appellants’ argument does not persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As found by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3), Drnevich teaches that the sulfur content should be reduced to less than about 0.1 ppmv in order to prevent degradation of a reforming catalyst with a steam methane reformer (Drnevich ¶ 51). That teaching would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the sulfur content in the prior art process, including Van De Graaf’s process, to the lowest extent possible by conventional means, thus resulting in a purified hydrocarbonaceous gas with a very low content of sulfur or sulfur compounds (e.g., 5 ppbv). The Appellants fail to assert, much less prove, that it was not possible to achieve a sulfur or sulfur compounds content of 5 ppbv using the purification means disclosed in Van De Graaf and Drnevich. Appeal 2013-002925 Application 12/096,299 5 SUMMARY For these reasons, and those set forth by the Examiner, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1–14 as unpatentable over Van De Graaf and Drnevich. 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 bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation