Ex Parte Grootveld et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2015

12096299 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 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.
12/096,299 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