Ex Parte Schrauwen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2012

11792764 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

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. 11/792,764 10/04/2007 Franciscus Johannes Maria Schrauwen TS1594US 5076 23632 7590 11/29/2012 SHELL OIL COMPANY P O BOX 2463 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463 EXAMINER LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2012 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 FRANCISCUS JOHANNES MARIA SCHRAUWEN ____________________ Appeal 2010-011004 Application 11/792,764 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: LINDA E. HORNER, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011004 Application 11/792,764 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 12. Claims 8 and 10 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The claims are directed to a reactor tube apparatus, a multi-tube reactor, and a process for producing liquid hydrocarbons. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 12 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A reactor tube apparatus for a gas and liquid reactor comprising: a reactor tube assembly having an inlet, an outlet and a throughbore running from the inlet to the outlet; a cap arranged over the inlet of the reactor tube assembly such that a fluid passage is formed to the throughbore of the reactor tube assembly, the cap comprising an inlet chamber having a gas inlet opening, a liquid inlet and an outlet which is in fluid communication with the upper end of the reactor tube, the upper end of the reactor tube not having fluid communication means other than the outlet of the cap; wherein the inlet of the reactor tube assembly is shaped to allow ingress of liquid therethrough at more than one vertical height. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Westerman ’057 Westerman ’205 US 4,751,057 US 4,894,205 Jun. 14, 1988 Jan. 16, 1990 Appeal 2010-011004 Application 11/792,764 3 REJECTIONS Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westerman ’057 and Westerman ’205. Ans. 3-6. 2. Claims 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westerman ’205 and Westerman ’057. Ans. 6-10. OPINION The Examiner has rejected all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Westerman ’057 in view of Westerman ’205 or vice versa. Ans. 3-10. The only issue presented on appeal is whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the reactor tube structure of Westerman ’057 by adding the reactor tube caps from Westerman ’205. The Examiner finds that motivation for modifying the primary references is found within the references themselves. See Ans. 4 (citing Westerman ’205, col. 6, ll. 7-10 as motive to modify Westerman ’057); see also, e.g., Ans. 7 (citing Westerman ’057, col. 4, ll. 32-36 as motive to modify Westerman ’205). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds: “A motivation for constructing the reactor tube apparatus with a cap arranged over the reactor tube as described above is to reduce variations of the liquid velocity in the reactor tubes due to tilt of the vessel and sagging of the upper tube plate (Westerman [’205]; column 6, lines 7-10).” Ans. 4. Appellant argues: [O]ne of skill in the art seeking to improve Westerman ’057 would not look to the Westerman et al. ’205 reference inasmuch as the Westerman ’057 apparatus already has a plurality of adjacent trays to control the distribution of liquid between the reactor tubes. Accordingly, Applicant submits that one of skill Appeal 2010-011004 Application 11/792,764 4 in the art would not have thought to utilize the reactor tube caps in the apparatus of Westerman ’057. Br. 4. The Examiner responds: “There are benefits of using hoods rather than trays. For instance, the tray apparatus shown in figure 1 of Westerman [’057] is a larger structure than the hoods shown in figure 1 of Westerman [’205], which implies higher costs, more turbulence, less uniform flow, etc.” Ans. 10. Incorporating the caps of Westerman ’205 into Westerman ’057 is the type of combining of familiar elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results that was identified as likely obvious by the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellant has failed to persuade us that the Examiner has not adequately articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that claim 1 is directed to obvious subject matter. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because Appellant relies on the same arguments presented for claim 1 to argue against the rejection of independent claims 9, 11, and 12 (App. Br. 5), we likewise affirm the rejection of claims 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 12. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2010-011004 Application 11/792,764 5 hh