Ex Parte Wellenhofer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12898931 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/898,931 10/06/2010
23599 7590 05/03/2016
MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P,C
2200 CLARENDON BL VD.
SUITE 1400
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
Anton Wellenhofer
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.
LINDE-0705 4783
EXAMINER
BULLOCK, IN SUK C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
docketing@mwzb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTON WELLENHOFER, WOLFGANG MULLER, and
ANINA WOHL
Appeal2014-008489
Application 12/898,931 1
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants request review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of
the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 11, 12, 14-23, and 25.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for controlling an
exothermic oligomerization reaction. App. Br. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Linde Aktiengesellschaft.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008489
Application 12/898,931
is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows
(emphasis added):
1. A method for reaction control of an exothermic
oligomerization reaction, comprising the steps of:
i) carrying out an exothermic oligomerization reaction of
introduced feed in a reactor (1) to produce olefinic
oligomer,
ii) measuring temperature and/or pressure in the reactor,
iii) removing the olefinic oligomer from the reactor (1) and
storing said olefinic oligomer in a storage container (8),
and
iv) in response to temperature and/or pressure exceeding a
critical value(s) in the reactor, passing said olefinic
oligomer produced previously in the exothermic
oligomerization from the storage container (8) into the
reactor ( 1) in direct contact with reactants so as to suppress
a runaway reaction.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Lashier us 5,859 ,303
Van Zon et al. US 2004/0122271 Al
Jan. 12, 1999
(hereinafter "Lashier")
June 24, 2004
(hereinafter "Van Zon")
Johnson et al., Guideline for the Identification and Control of
Exothermic Chemical Reactions in ESSENTIAL PRACTICES FOR
MANAGING CHEMICAL REACTIVITY HAZARDS, CENTER FOR CHEMICAL
PROCESS SAFETY/AICHE 1-30 (2003) (hereinafter "Johnson").
Mcintosh and Nolan, Review of the selection and design of mitigation
systems for runaway chemical reactions, 14 J. Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries 27--42 (2001) (hereinafter "Mcintosh").
2
Appeal2014-008489
Application 12/898,931
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8, 11, 12, 14--18, 20-23, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Van Zon, Johnson, and Mcintosh.
2. Claims 19 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Van Zon, Johnson, Mcintosh, and
Lashier.
DISCUSSION
Appellants present separate arguments only for independent claim 1
and dependent claims 19 and 24. App. Br. 2-7. Therefore, we need not
address any of the claims separately from claims 1, 19, and 24.
All other dependent claims stand or fall with claim 1. After consideration of
the arguments and evidence set forth in the briefs, we determine that
Appellants have not demonstrated reversible error, essentially for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner. We add the following for emphasis.
Rejection 1. The Examiner finds that Van Zon discloses a process for
oligomerization of ethylene to produce alpha-olefins, involving the steps of
introducing a feed of ethylene into a reactor, producing olefinic oligomers of
ethylene in the reactor, withdrawing a portion of the oligomeric product
from the reactor and recycling the oligomeric product back to the reactor,
and removing oligomeric product for recovery. Ans. 2-3. The Examiner
further finds that Van Zon discloses the importance of controlling
temperature and pressure in the process (id. at 3), Johnson and Mcintosh
disclose methods for controlling hazards associated with exothermic
3
Appeal2014-008489
Application 12/898,931
reactions such as a quench liquid (id. at 3--4), and further that ivicintosh
discloses that suitable quench liquids are compatible with reactor contents,
solvents for the reactants, and non-reactive with the reaction mixture. Id. at
4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Van Zon to utilize a quench
system to control an exothermic oligomerization reaction and select a
quench liquid which is a compatible solvent as taught by Mcintosh. Id. at 5.
Appellants' arguments against the rejection predominantly address the
references individually. App. Br. 2---6. Those arguments are not persuasive
of reversible error, because arguing against individual references cannot
overcome a rejection based on a combination of the references. In re Keller,
208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981). As to Appellants' argument that it
would not have been obvious to use the oligomeric product as the quench
liquid (App. Br. 6), the Examiner has explained the ethylene oligomer
product that is passed back to the reactor of Van Zon meets the criteria
disclosed in Mcintosh for a quench liquid (i.e., Van Zon teaches feeding the
oligomer I-butene to the reactor). Ans. 11-12. That Mcintosh alone does
not disclose introducing quench fluid into the reactor is not persuasive of
harmful error. App. Br. 6. The Examiner provided articulated reasoning
with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,
which is sufficient to sustain the rejection. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir 2006).
Rejection 2. Claims 19 and 24 depend from claim 1 and contain
additional limitations that the olefinic oligomer stored in the storage
container consists of resultant olefinic oligomer product (claim 19), and
additionally that the exothermic oligomerization is oligomerization of
4
Appeal2014-008489
Application 12/898,931
ethylene (claim 24). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use Lashier' s disclosure of an olefin
oligomerization process for production of oligomers of ethylene in the
combination of Van Zon, Johnson, and Mcintosh, for the reasons discussed
above, and additionally because using Lashier' s alpha-olefin oligmer diluent
in place of the recycled oligomer of Van Zon would involve substitution of a
known prior art alpha-olefin for another known alpha-olefin to obtain
predictable results. Ans. 8-9, 13. Appellants' arguments against the
rejection are directed at Lashier individually (App. Br. 7) and thus do not
persuade us of reversible error, as discussed above. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 11, 12, 14--18, 20-23,
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Van Zon, Johnson, and Mcintosh.
We affirm the rejection of claims 19 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Van Zon, Johnson, Mcintosh, and
Lashier.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5