Ex Parte Hardman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2016

12998793 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/998,793 06/02/2011
23117 7590 02/17/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen Hardman
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.
LCM-608-693 8963
EXAMINER
NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN HARDMAN and
HUI SEE YAP
Appeal2014-004347
Application 12/998,793
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 of Application 12/998,793.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a synthesis gas (also referred to
herein as "syngas") generation process.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as BP p.l.c. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2014-004347
Application 12/998,793
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A process for the simultaneous production of a hydrogen
stream A useful for the production of product A; a hydrogen
rich synthesis gas stream B useful for the production of product
B; a hydrogen depleted synthesis gas stream C useful for the
production of product C; and optionally, a carbon monoxide
stream D useful for the production of product D; from a single
synthesis gas stream X wherein:
a) the single synthesis gas stream X has a synthesis gas
molar ratio calculated as H2/CO optimized for the
production of product C,
b) the single synthesis gas stream X is separated into a
synthesis gas stream X 1, a synthesis gas stream X2, a
synthesis gas stream X3 and optionally a synthesis gas
stream X4,
c) the synthesis gas stream X 1 is subjected to a water gas
shift reaction step to convert the CO from the synthesis
gas stream X 1 and water into C02 and H2,
d) the C02 and H2 from step c) are respectively separated
and recovered,
e) a fraction of the H2 from step d) is used as the hydrogen
stream A,
t) a fraction of the H2 from step d) is combined with
synthesis gas stream X2 which is then used as the
hydrogen rich synthesis gas stream B,
g) the synthesis gas stream X3 is used as the hydrogen
depleted synthesis gas stream C, and optionally
h) the synthesis gas stream X4 is treated to remove the
carbon dioxide and hydrogen thereof; and the resulting
carbon monoxide stream is used as a carbon monoxide
source of stream D.
2
Appeal2014-004347
Application 12/998,793
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pedersen2 in view ofDavey3 and Janda. 4
II. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pedersen in view of Davey and Janda, and further in view of
Patel.5
DISCUSSION
I. Rejection I
Appellants do not present arguments specifically directed to
dependent claims 2---6, 8, and 9. Therefore, those claims stand or fall with
independent claim 1, from which they depend.
The Examiner finds that Pedersen discloses a process for
simultaneous production of a hydrogen stream useful for the production of
Product A (NH3) and Product C (a hydrocarbon mixture), which is impliedly
optimized for production of Product C because it uses a Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis unit. Final Act. 2-3; Pedersen 2:58---61; 4:61---63; 5:12-15, 27-32;
Fig 2. The Examiner further finds that Pedersen discloses all other
limitations of claim 1, except for those relating to production of Product B
(methanol), for which the Examiner looks to Janda and Davey. Final Act.
3--4. The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
2 Pedersen et al., US 7,300,642 Bl, issued Nov. 27, 2007 (hereinafter
"Pedersen").
3 Davey et al., US 2005/0107480 Al, published May 19, 2005 (hereinafter
"Davey").
4 Janda et al., US 6,486,219 Bl, issued Nov. 26, 2002 (hereinafter "Janda").
5 Patel et al., US 4,886,651, issued Dec. 12, 1989 (hereinafter "Patel").
3
Appeal2014-004347
Application 12/998,793
have used Janda's disclosure that excess C02 from a Fischer-Tropsch
conversion can be used as a carbon source for a methanol synthesis unit to
produce Product B (methanol), in order to remove a portion of the excess
C02that is generated by Pedersen's process. Final Act. 3--4; Janda 1:67-
2: 14. Further, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill would have
used Davey's disclosure concerning production of methanol from a
hydrogen rich synthesis gas (Davey i-f 15), and the economic advantage of
fractionating the components of a synthesis gas in a single production plant
(Davey i-f 3), to modify Pedersen's process to include the production of
methanol. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further finds that Davey's teaching
of combining a synthesis gas stream with H2 from a C02/H2 separation unit
(Davey Fig. 1, stream 8) and using that combined stream (id., stream 9) for
methanol production would have led a person of ordinary skill to modify
Pedersen' s process to include a combined stream of H2 and synthesis gas as
recited in step (f) of claim 1, for economic advantage as recognized by
Davey. Final Act. 4--5.
Appellants argue that the rejection should be reversed for several
reasons: (1) Pedersen's syngas stream is not optimized for production of
Product C (hydrocarbons); (2) none of the references, alone or in
combination, disclose that the original syngas stream is separated into three
syngas streams, in which the third stream is used to form a third product; (3)
Davey does not disclose recycling hydrogen from a syngas stream that has
undergone a water gas shift reaction, or that the third syngas stream is
enriched with the recycled hydrogen. App. Br. 7-12. We address each of
these arguments in tum.
Appellants' argument that Pedersen's syngas stream is not optimized
for production of Product C (a hydrocarbon mixture) does not persuade us of
4
Appeal2014-004347
Application 12/998,793
reversible error in the rejection. Specifically, Appellants' assertions that
"there is no suggestion that the Pedersen starting gas 103 itself has an
optimized molar ratio for the production of any given product" and that
optimization "may have occurred after the separation step that splits 103 into
105 and 107'' are unsupported and based on speculation. App. Br. 10. Even
though Appellants correctly note that Pedersen teaches production of
ammonia in addition to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (Reply Br. 2), Appellants
fail to recognize Pedersen's explicit teaching that Fischer-Tropsch
production relative to ammonia production "may be adjusted by passing
more or less syngas around the FT synthesis unit." Pedersen 3:7-9.
Moreover, "bypassing the FT reactor entirely and producing only ammonia"
(Reply Br. 3) is merely one embodiment of Pedersen's process and does not
establish error in the Examiner's findings. See Ans. 2-3.
With respect to Appellants' arguments that Janda and Davey do not
disclose a third syngas stream from the starting syngas stream X (App. Br.
7-8), as recited in step (b) of claim 1, we are also not persuaded of reversible
error in the rejection. Appellants' argument does not address the basis for
the rejection, which was that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized from Janda's teaching that the same syngas used in a Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis can also be used for methanol synthesis, and used that
teaching to modify Pedersen's process to produce Product B (methanol) in
addition to Products C and A. Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner
adequately showed that the combined teachings of Pedersen and Janda
would have suggested a process having three gas streams from a single
syngas stream to a person of ordinary skill in the art; bodily incorporation of
Janda's process into Pedersen's is not required. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
5
Appeal2014-004347
Application 12/998,793
As to Davey, although Appellants argue that "[t]here is no disclosure
or suggestion of a hydrogen recycle in Davey" (App. Br. 9), they have not
explained how they allege reversible error in the Examiner's specific finding
that Davey satisfies step (f) of the appealed claim by "combining a synthesis
gas stream (Davey, stream 6 of Fig. 1) with H2 from a C02/H2 separation
unit (Davey, stream 8 of Fig. 1) and using that combined stream (Davey,
stream 9 of Fig. 1) for methanol production." Final Act. 4. Thus,
Appellants' argument lacks convincing merit. Appellants more vigorously
dispute the Examiner's finding that stream 9 in Davey's process (Davey Fig.
1) is a hydrogen rich syngas. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4--5. Specifically,
Appellants argue "the intention from Davey is clearly to hydrogen deplete
the methanol synthesis gas stream 6 in forming [stream] 9" such that "Davey
stream 9 is therefore clearly hydrogen-depleted." App. Br. 11. Appellants
rely on Davey i-f 33 as showing that "intent," but they have not adequately
explained how that conclusion follows from Davey i-f 33, particularly in light
of the Examiner's finding that Davey's intention is to obtain a stream for
methanol synthesis, which is a function of hydrogen, CO and C02 molar
concentrations. App. Br. 11; Ans. 4--5. Appellants also point to the
hydrogen levels of the individual gas streams shown in Davey Table I as
support for their argument, i.e., "stream 9 has a lower proportion of
hydrogen than either stream 4 or 5 .... " App. Br. 11. Appellants'
explanation of Table I, however, is inadequate to support their conclusion.
For example, Appellants have not explained the hydrogen level of stream 9
in comparison to streams 2 and 3. Id. We have also considered Appellants'
arguments concerning the comparative ratios of hydrogen to carbon in
streams 4 and 9 as shown in Davey Table I, but we are not persuaded that
this "leads away from the presently claimed invention." Id. Davey does not
6
Appeal2014-004347
Application 12/998,793
criticize or otherwise discourage using a hydrogen rich stream in order to
obtain a stream with a suitable stoichiometric number for methanol
synthesis, and as the Examiner correctly finds, it shares the intention of the
claimed subject matter of obtaining a suitable stream for methanol synthesis.
Ans. 4-5. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of harmful error in the
rejection.
II. Rejection II
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and recites that the molar ratio of
H2/CO in synthesis gas stream Xis from 1.6 to 2.5. The Examiner finds that
Patel discloses a ratio of 1.5 to 3.0 for use in higher alcohol production
(Product C of claim 1 ). Final Act. 8. Appellants' argument against the
rejection merely recites the claim elements and asserts that they are not
found in any of the references, alone or in combination. See In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, claim 7 falls with claim 1.
SU~vHv1ARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-9 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons set forth above.
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
cdc
7