Ex Parte Lourenco et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 8, 2016

12120194 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/120, 194 05/13/2008 Jose Lourenco 26389 7590 04/12/2016 CHRISTENSEN O'CONNOR JOHNSON KINDNESS PLLC 1201 THIRD A VENUE SUITE 3600 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3029 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. THAS131312 4441 EXAMINER RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/12/2016 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): 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 Appeal2013-009818 Application 12/120, 194 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jose Lourenco and MacKenzie Millar ("Appellants") seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of rejected claims 1-3, 6, and 7. Br. i. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2013-009818 Application 12/120, 194 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' invention relates to a method of recovering carbon dioxide ("C02") from C02-containing gas streams. Spec. 1, 11. 4--5. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below. 1. A method to cool and condense a C02-containing gas stream to recover C02, comprising: providing a first set of heat exchangers and a second set of heat exchangers, each set comprising one or more heat exchangers, each heat exchanger having a first flow path for passage of a first fluid and a second flow path for passage of a second fluid; cooling, precipitating, separating and recovering C02 as a liquid by passing an uncompressed gaseous C02 containing gas stream along the first flow path of each heat exchanger in the first and second sets of heats exchangers, removing water from the gaseous C02-containing gas stream, passing the gaseous C02- containing gas stream through a separator, and then compressing the gaseous C02-containing gas stream exiting the separator prior to cryogenic cooling; passing the cooled C02-containing gas stream along the second flow path of the first set of heat exchangers to cool the gaseous C02-containing gas stream; and vaporizing and heating a pressurized Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) natural gas stream in a series of stages until the natural gas stream is heated to a temperature suitable for distribution by passing the natural gas stream, firstly, through the second flow path of the second set of heat exchangers and, secondly, through a gas expander, through which gas passes without being consumed, the gas expander being capable of generating power from expanding natural gas before discharging the natural gas into a distribution natural gas line for downstream consumption. Br. 8 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal2013-009818 Application 12/120, 194 THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Meratla (US 5,467,722, issued Nov. 21, 1995), Mak (US 2007/0101732 Al, published May 10, 2007), and Ochs (US 6,898,936 Bl, issued May 31, 2005). Final Act. 2 (mailed Oct. 11, 2012). II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Meratla, Mak, Ochs, and McKeigue (US 2009/0208388 Al, published Aug. 20, 2009). Final Act. 8. III. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Meratla, Mak, Ochs, and Polizzotto (US 4,907 ,405, issued Mar. 13, 1990). Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS In rejecting independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 7, the Examiner finds that Meratla discloses a method to cool, condense, and recover C02 from a C02-containing gas stream. Final Act. 2; see id. at 2-9. In particular, the Examiner finds that Meratla discloses heat exchangers 6--9 (shown in Figure 1) with "a first flow path for passage of a first fluid 12 and a second flow path for passage of second fluid 11." Id. at 2-3. 3 Appeal2013-009818 Application 12/120,194 We reproduce Figure 1 of Meratla below: FIGURE 1 'Â· 19 Figure 1 depicts "the basic steps and apparatus" of Meratla's invention, including heat exchangers 6, 7, 8, and 9 for removing, separately, water, N02, S02, and C02 (i.e., Meratla's pollutants) from compressed gas 12. Meratla: col. 4, 11. 6-8; col 5, 11. 29-30; col. 8, 11. 22-31. Liquid natural gas 11, 13 is passed through heat exchangers 6-9 in a counter-flow direction to cool gas 12, resulting in sequential "condensing or freezing, and thus separating, [of] the pollutants" from gas 12, while also resulting in vaporization of liquid natural gas 13, for use in a combustible gas-fired furnace 14. Id. at col. 7, 11. 36-64. In addition to Figure 1 of Meratla, the Examiner also cites to detailed Figures 2A, 2B, and finds that Meratla's heat exchangers E-106 and E-108 satisfy the claimed "first set of heat exchangers" and heat exchangers E-10 7 and E-109 satisfy the claimed "second set of heat exchangers." Final Act. 2-3. In relying on Mak, the Examiner acknowledges that Meratla does not explicitly disclose the claimed "gas expander being capable of generating 4 Appeal2013-009818 Application 12/120, 194 power from expanding natural gas before discharging the natural gas into a distribution natural gas line for downstream consumption," as recited in claim 1, but finds that Mak discloses an expander "to produce work and 'optionally to bring methane product to pipeline pressure,'" and concludes that it would have been obvious to use Mak's expander and "expanded natural gas for distribution" "to provide for a more efficient utilization" of Meratla's vaporized natural gas. See Final Act 5---6 (citing Mak: para. 33; Fig. 3). In contesting the rejection, Appellants present the following arguments, which we address separately, below. First, Appellants assert that "the Examiner has erred ... by misinterpreting the teachings of the references." Br. 5. In particular, Appellants assert that "Mak[] requires massive amounts of heat to gasify the large volumes of LNG" (Br. 6), whereas "[Meratla] uses a gas turbine ... [and that the] cooling provided by the LNG is limited by the fuel gas requirements of the gas turbine" (Id. at 5). Based on these alleged differences, Appellants argue, "[i]f the LNG is heated through a heat exchange as taught by [Meratla], the LNG would provide cooling to the heat transfer medium in excess of the cooling requirements of [Meratla], in view of the scale of the fuel gas requirements of [Mak' s] consumer network as opposed to a single gas turbine," as provided in Meratla. See id. at 6. We do not find Appellants' first argument persuasive, as Appellants fail to point out where the Examiner has erred in interpreting the prior art. Instead, and as explained correctly by the Examiner, Appellants' alleged "apparent differences between the application and the prior art references being applied ... are either incorrect or not being claimed." Ans. 3. As an 5 Appeal2013-009818 Application 12/120, 194 example of Appellants' error, Meratla not only discloses combustion of the vaporized natural gas in a gas turbine, Meratla also discloses that "[a]ltematively, the vaporized natural gas may be sent to a gas distribution system, where available." Meratla, col. 14, 11. 24--26; see also Final Act. 6 (citing Meratla, col. 14, 11. 24--26). In other words, Appellants' first argument is premised on a mistaken assumption that Meratla only discloses combustion of liquid natural gas in a gas turbine. See Br. 5---6. Second, Appellants assert that "a primary purpose" of the claimed invention includes "the use of LNG ... as a cooling agent," which "differs from the teachings of the prior art." Id. at 6. Appellants further argue, "[i]n the absence of natural gas consumption requirements, [that is], to supply fuel gas to a gas turbine as required by [Meratla], or to supply fuel gas to a multitude of consumers as required by Mak, there would be no motivation to use LNG." Id. We do not find Appellants' second argument persuasive, as it is premised on a misreading of Meratla, as discussed supra, and fails to point out error in the Examiner's rejection. Moreover-and to the extent that Appellants' assertion that "there would be no motivation" challenges the Examiner's reason for combining Mak with Meratla-Appellants do not explain why the Examiner's combination of Mak's expander with Meratla's system is in error, or why the stated reasoning, "to provide for a more efficient utilization of the vaporized LNG," is in error. See id.; Final Act. 5---6. Instead, we find that the Examiner's reason for combining Meratla with Mak is articulately reasoned with some rational underpinnings. In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). 6 Appeal2013-009818 Application 12/120, 194 For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Meratla, Mak, and Ochs. Furthermore, Appellants do not present separate arguments for the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 7 under Rejection I, the rejection of claim 3 under Rejection II, and the rejection of claim 6 under Rejection III. Br. 7. Accordingly, Appellants also fail to identify error in the rejection of any of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, or 7. As such, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 7 under Rejection I, the rejection of claim 3 under Rejection II, and the rejection of claim 6 under Rejection III. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Meratla, Mak, and Ochs is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Meratla, Mak, Ochs, and McKeigue is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Meratla, Mak, Ochs, and Polizzotto is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7