Ex Parte Lourenco et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 2018

13980548 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/980,548 09/05/2013 Jose Lourenco 26389 7590 08/23/2018 CHRISTENSEN O'CONNOR JOHNSON KINDNESS PLLC 1201 Third Avenue Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 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. THAS142868 9784 EXAMINER KING, BRIAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2018 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): efiling@cojk.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSE LOURENCO and MACKENZIE MILLAR Appeal2017-010171 Application 13/980,548 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. According to Appellants, the "invention relates to methods for recovery of natural gas liquids (NGLs) from methane rich gases using liquid 1 According to Appellants, "[t]he ... application is owned by 1304342 Alberta Ltd ... and 1304338 Alberta Ltd." Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-010171 Application 13/980,548 natural gas (LNG)." Spec. ,i 2. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A method for recovery of natural gas liquids from natural gas using cold energy stored in LNG comprising the step of: using a storage vessel containing LNG as an external cooling source to control the operation and recovery ofNGLs in a distillation column located at a natural gas straddle plant by: pressurizing a stream of LNG to match a pressure of a stream of un-distilled, expanded, feed gas; mixing the pressurized stream of LNG with the stream of un-distilled, expanded, feed gas to form an input stream; injecting the input stream into the distillation column; injecting a reflux stream of LNG to control a temperature within the distillation column by mixing of LNG with a rising gas stream, the LNG being used to condition the input stream; and compressing the fractionated natural gas and injecting the fractionated natural gas into a natural gas distribution line. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement; II. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Martinez et al. (US 2009/0282865 Al, pub. Nov. 19, 2009) 2 Appeal2017-010171 Application 13/980,548 ("Martinez") and Lourenco et al. (US 2009/0249829 Al, pub. Oct. 8, 2009) ("Lourenco"); and III. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Martinez, Lourenco, and Mak et al. (US 2007 /0062216 A 1, pub. Mar. 22, 2007) ("Mak"). ANALYSIS Rejection I Appellants do not submit arguments against the Examiner's written- description rejection of claim 2. Instead, Appellants indicate that they "reserve the right to amend claim 2 to address the rejection ... at a later time." Appeal Br. 6. Thus, we summarily sustain the rejection. Rejection II Based on our review of the record, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs in the rejection of independent claim 1 as obvious based on a combination of Martinez and Lourenco. Thus, we sustain claim l's obviousness rejection. Appellants argue that it was error for the Examiner to conclude that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed method by combining Martinez with Lourenco. Appellants further submit that one of ordinary skill would not have been led to make such a combination .... Appeal Br. 6. We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' argument, however, because Appellants' argument does not include any clear evidentiary basis that is sufficient to persuade us that the Examiner errs. Throughout their 3 Appeal2017-010171 Application 13/980,548 Appeal Brief ( and Reply Brief), Appellants do not reference any portion of either their Specification, or the written disclosures of Martinez or Lourenco, providing evidence that would support their arguments. To the extent that Appellants reference Martinez's and Lourenco's figures to support their arguments, it is not evident that the figures themselves describe what is being argued by Appellants. Thus, Appellants' arguments amount to little more than unsupported assertions as to 1) the disclosures of Martinez and Lourenco, 2) differences between the references themselves and Appellants' claims, and 3) why it would not be obvious to combine the references to arrive at Appellants' claims. Appellants further argue that the Examiner's proposed modification of Martinez based on Lourenco is in error, because the modification would impermissibly change Martinez's principle of operation. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 7. We are not convinced of error, however, as Appellants do not establish persuasively what is Martinez's principle of operation (see, e.g., id. at 9, 11, 14), such as by providing sufficient citations to Martinez or other evidence. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner's proposed modification would change that principle of operation. "Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de nova review of all aspects of a rejection." See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (internal citations omitted). Appellants' arguments must address the Examiner's action with specificity sufficient to show error by the Examiner. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant"); see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require 4 Appeal2017-010171 Application 13/980,548 more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art"). Further, "it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the [E]xaminer's rejections." In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In this case, the Board will not advocate for Appellants by examining the record to see if the Board may find evidentiary support that is sufficient to establish error in the Examiner's findings of fact, articulated reasoning, or legal conclusions. See, e.g., Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("'A skeletal 'argument', really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim ... "') (internal citation omitted). Here, the Examiner's factual findings appear to be supported adequately, and Appellants do not provide a sufficient evidentiary or analytical basis for us to disagree. See, e.g., Answer 3-4. And, therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence showing otherwise, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to combine Martinez and Lourenco as the Examiner proposes, to provide the recitations of claim 1. See, e.g., id. at 4. Rejection III Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 2 is in error because Mak does not remedy the deficiencies in claim l's rejection. Inasmuch as Appellants do not persuade us that there is a deficiency in claim l's rejection, however, we are not persuaded of error in claim 2's rejection. 5 Appeal2017-010171 Application 13/980,548 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner written description and obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 2. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6