Ex Parte Masani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2017

12550098 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2017)

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.
12/550,098 08/28/2009 Karl D. Masani 34282US 1258
28841 7590 08/14/2017
PnnnonPhillins; Pnmnanv
EXAMINER
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079-1175
ZEC, FILIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2017 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):
Legal-IP@conocophillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARL D. MASANI and CYRUS B. MEHER-HOMJI
Appeal 2016-000008
Application 12/550,0981
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—20, and 22—38. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed “invention relates to methods and apparatuses for
liquefying natural gas. In another aspect, the invention concerns a liquefied
natural gas (LNG) facility employing a cooling system operable to enhance
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CONOCOPHILLIPS
COMPANY. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-000008
Application 12/550,098
the performance of one or more gas turbines used in the LNG facility.”
(Spec. 12.)
Claims 1, 20, and 31 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites:
1. A process for liquefying a natural gas stream, the
process comprising:
(a) cooling at least a portion of the natural gas stream via
indirect heat exchange with a first refrigerant in a first
refrigeration cycle to produce a cooled natural gas stream;
(b) further cooling at least a portion of the cooled natural
gas stream via indirect heat exchange with a second refrigerant
in a second refrigeration cycle to provide a further cooled natural
gas stream; and
(c) partially compressing an air stream with a low
compression stage to provide a partially compressed air stream;
(d) cooling the air stream and the partially compressed air
stream via indirect heat exchanger with a primary coolant
selected from the group consisting of: the first refrigerant, the
second refrigerant, and any combination thereof, to provide a
cooled inlet air stream and a cooled partially compressed air
stream, wherein the partially compressed air stream is withdrawn
from an intermediate compression stage of a gas turbine used to
drive at least one refrigerant compressor associated with the first
or the second refrigeration cycle, or both; and
(e) introducing the cooled inlet air stream into an inlet of
the gas turbine.
2
Appeal 2016-000008
Application 12/550,098
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5—9, 12, 17—20, 22—28, and 31—352 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Low (US 6,070,429, iss.
June 6, 2000) and Alekseev (US 2009/0188280 Al, pub. July 30, 2009).
Claims 2, 4, 10, 13—15, 29, 30, and 36—38 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Low, Alekseev, and Urbach
(US 4,509,324, iss. Apr. 9, 1985).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Low, Alekseev, Urbach, and Mark J. Roberts et al., Large Capacity Single
Train AP-X™ Hybrid LNG Process, GASTECH 2002.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Low does “not teach the details of the
compressor(s) driver(s),” i.e., steps (c) and (d) of claim 1. (Pinal Action 6.)
However, the Examiner also finds, in relevant part, that “Alekseev teaches
...(d) cooling the air stream (12b, PIG. 2) and the partially compressed air
stream (115, PIG. 2) via indirect heat exchanger (16, PIG. 2) with a primary
coolant selected from the first refrigerant, the second refrigerant, and any
combination thereof (35 or 34, PIG. 2).” {Id.)
Appellants disagree and argue that “Low and Alekseev even if
hypothetically combined fail to indicate, or suggest to one skilled in the art,
2 Claim 21 is cancelled. {See Pinal Action 2.) Therefore, we treat the
statement in the Pinal Action that “[cjlaims 1, 5—9, 12,17—28 and 31—25 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)” as a typographical error. {See id. at 4,
emphasis added.) We also note that although claim 12 is rejected under
§ 103(a) in view of Low and Alekseev {see id.) we find no discussion in the
Pinal Action of the reason for the rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-000008
Application 12/550,098
use of the refrigerants claimed for providing the indirect heat exchange of
the air streams.” (Appeal Br. 5.) Specifically, Appellants argue that
[t]he Examiner refers to Low at col. 1, lines 55-60, for teaching
the coolant is either “propane, propylene, ethane, ethylene,
methane, nitrogen or combinations of the preceding.” This
reference in Low with respect to potential refrigerants for
liquefaction of natural gas provides no basis to support a
combination where such refrigerant also cools air streams.
In particular, Low offers no guidance on refrigerant
selection for the cooling of air streams based on combination
with Alekseev since Low fails to teach the cooling of air streams
at all.
(Id.)
The Examiner answers that “[b]y combining the two references, one
of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize the available
refrigerants in Low which are compressed and expanded in a manner
depicted in Alekseev for the purpose of reducing the overall cost of the
system.” (Answer 12.)
When, as in this case, it is necessary “to look to interrelated teachings
of multiple patents,” we must “determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent
at issue.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
“‘[TJhere must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Id. (citing In
re Kahn, 441 L.3d 977, 988 (Led. Cir. 2006)).
Although the Examiner cites to element 34 (“oxygen is ultimately
released as a gaseous product stream 34”) and element 35 (“[o]ne or more
additional product or residual streams 35”) of Alekseev (final Action 6; see
also Alekseev 126), the Examiner does not sufficiently explain why it would
4
Appeal 2016-000008
Application 12/550,098
have been obvious to use the refrigerants in Low, i.e., the refrigerants used
to cool the natural gas stream, as opposed to the products in the streams
disclosed in Alekseev or other refrigerants, or how costs relate thereto. (See
Appeal Br. 5.) Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under § 103(a). Independent claims 20 and 31 contain
similar language and for similar reasons we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 20 and 31 and dependent claims 5—9, 12, 17—19,
22—28, and 32—35. The other grounds of rejection do not include findings
and/or reasoning to remedy the errant reasoning discussed above. Therefore,
we are also persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims
2, 4, 10, 13-16, 29, 30, and 36-38.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12—20, and 22—38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
5