Ex Parte Sexton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2012

11541340 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/541,340 09/29/2006 Jeff Sexton 06029/6718AUS 2428
20879 7590 11/23/2012
EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO
P O BOX 916
ONE SEAGATE SUITE 1980
TOLEDO, OH 43697
EXAMINER
SINGH, PREM C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1771
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2012 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 JEFF SEXTON and BRIAN K. WILT
____________

Appeal 2012-001004
Application 11/541,340
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-21, and
23-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process for controlling on line catalytic cracking (FCC) of a
hydrocarbon feeds, intermediate and products exhibiting asorption [sic,
absorption] in the near infrared (NIR) region comprising:
a) measuring absorbances of said feed, intermediates, or products
using a spectrometer measuring absorbances at wavelengths within the range
of about 780-4000 nm, and outputting an emitted signal indicative of said
absorbance;
b) subjecting the NIR spectrometer signal to a mathematical treatment
(e.g. derivative, smooth, baseline correction) of the emitted signal;
Appeal 2012-001004
Application 11/541,340

2
c) processing the emitted signal or the mathematical treatment using a
defined model to determine the chemical or physical properties of feeds,
intermediate or products and outputting a processed signal;
d) controlling on-line in response to the processed signal, at least one
parameter of the catalytic cracking feed, intermediate or product
e) periodically or continuously outputting a periodic or continuous
signal indicative of the intensity of said absorbance in said wavelength, or
wavelengths in said two or more bands or a combination of mathematical
functions thereof;
f) mathematically converting the signal to an output signal indicative
of the mathematical function;
g) controlling the process on-line in response to the output signal,
thereby allowing direct monitoring of the feedstock properties and effluent
yields in real time to ensure product quality and processing targets are
achieved; and using NIR measuring to provide real time optimization of
(RTO) FCC processing; and
utilizing Advance Process Control (APC) technology to maximize
FCC operation against constraints.

The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence of
obviousness:
Descales et al. (Descales) US 6,070,128 May 30, 2000
Appellants state in an Appendix to the Brief that “[n]o decision has
been rendered by a court or the Board in any proceedings in related appeals
and interferences.” However, the Board decided an appeal of a closely
related application (Appeal No. 2010-000044). In a decision dated April 20,
2010, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection over the same prior art
presently applied by the Examiner. The only difference between claim 1 in
the prior appeal and instant claim 1 is the last paragraph which now recites
“utilizing Advance Process Control (APC) technology to maximize FCC
operation against constraints.”
Appeal 2012-001004
Application 11/541,340

3
Appealed claims 1, 3-9, 11-21, and 23-27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Descales.
Appellants do not present separate, substantive arguments for any
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons
articulated in the prior decision and those set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Descales’s disclosure of a process for controlling on line catalytic cracking
of hydrocarbon feeds, including controlling the process on line with process
control technology. It is Appellants’ singular argument that Descales does
not disclose the use of the claimed Advance Process Control (APC).
However, Appellants have not defined APC in any way which distinguishes
it over the process control technology employed by Descales. Furthermore,
Appellants’ Specification states that “conventional (c) practice is limited to
use of APC where typically only one variable an [sic, can] be manipulated to
push the unit against constraints (page 10, last paragraph). However,
Appellants have not claimed the use of APC in a manner that sets it apart
from the admittedly conventional APC of the prior art. The claim language
Appeal 2012-001004
Application 11/541,340

4
“utilizing . . . (APC) technology” is sufficiently broad to encompass the
acknowledged conventional practice of manipulating one variable via APC.
Moreover, Appellants have not explained how the use of the claimed
APC would not have been obvious over the process control technology of
the prior art. Hence, Appellants have failed to not only set forth the
particular difference between the claimed APC and the process control of the
prior art, but have not established why any such difference would have been
nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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

cam