Fritz Pierre

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 17, 2020

15348533 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2020)

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. 15/348,533 11/10/2016 Fritz Pierre JR. 2015EM396 8130 34477 7590 06/17/2020 ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway (EMHC-N1.4A.607) Spring, TX 77389 EXAMINER KING, BRIAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/17/2020 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): urc-mail-formalities@exxonmobil.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FRITZ PIERRE JR. Appeal 2020-000159 Application 15/348,533 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 14–16, 18–22, 24, and 26–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-000159 Application 15/348,533 2 BACKGROUND The Specification discloses that “[t]he invention relates to the liquefaction of natural gas to form liquefied natural gas (LNG), and more specifically, to the production of LNG in remote or sensitive areas where the construction and/or maintenance of capital facilities, and/or the environmental impact of a conventional LNG plant may be detrimental.” Spec. ¶ 3. CLAIMS Claims 1, 21, and 28 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A method of producing liquefied natural gas (LNG), the method comprising: providing a natural gas stream from a supply of natural gas; compressing the natural gas stream in at least two serially arranged compressors to a pressure of at least 2,000 psia to form a compressed natural gas stream; cooling the compressed natural gas stream in at least one heat exchanger that exchanges heat with an ambient environment to form a cooled compressed natural gas stream, wherein the at least one heat exchanger is an air cooled heat exchanger or a water cooled heat exchanger; expanding, in at least one work producing natural gas expander, the cooled compressed natural gas stream to a pressure that is less than 3000 psia and no greater than the pressure to which the at least two serially arranged compressors compress the natural gas stream, to thereby form a chilled natural gas stream; and liquefying the chilled natural gas stream in one or more liquefaction trains, wherein the liquefaction trains comprise one or more closed refrigeration loops. Appeal Br. 15. Appeal 2020-000159 Application 15/348,533 3 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 14–16, 18, 21, 24, and 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Paradowski2 in view of Vandor,3 Whitesell,4 and Minta.5 2. The Examiner rejects claims 19, 20, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Paradowski in view of Vandor, Whitesell, Minta, and Isaacson.6 DISCUSSION With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Paradowski discloses a method of producing liquefied natural gas by providing a natural gas stream from a supply; cooling the stream to form a cooled natural gas stream, expanding the cooled stream to a pressure that is less than 3000 psia to form a chilled gas stream; and liquefying the gas stream in a liquefaction train including gone or more refrigeration loops. Final Act. 5 (citing Paradowski Fig. 5, ¶¶ 75, 159). The Examiner acknowledges that Paradowski does not teach first compressing the natural gas stream in serially arranged compressors and cooling the gas stream with at least one heat exchanger that exchanges heat with the ambient environment. Id. at 5– 7. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Paradowski based on Vander, Whitesell, and Minta to include these features. Id. at 6–7. Further, in response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner 2 Paradowski et al., US 2010/0126214 A1, pub. May 27, 2010. 3 Vandor, US 2012/0036888 A1, pub. Feb. 16, 2012. 4 Whitesell, US 2006/0213222 A1, pub. Sept. 28, 2006. 5 Minta, US 2010/0107684 A1, pub. May 6, 2010. 6 Isaacson et al., US 2015/0253072 A1, pub. Sept. 10, 2015. Appeal 2020-000159 Application 15/348,533 4 makes clear that the proposed modification to Paradowski is related to compressing and cooling the natural gas stream to an initial pressure and temperature suitable for input into Paradowski’s system. See Ans. 18–22. Further, the Examiner also finds that “Paradowski only teaches components which are relevant to operation, but not for example, how the feed gas stream arrives in the system.” Id. at 19. Thus, the Examiner explains that the proposed combination including Vander, Whitesell, and Minta shows “how the [natural gas] stream would arrive to the point of the heat exchanger . . . of Paradowski” and that it would have been obvious to include “an ambient heat exchanger and compression to provide the stream at the proper pressure and temperature for further cooling and liquefaction.” Id. at 21. Appellant first asserts that Paradowski’s first refrigerant cycle does not include “exchanging heat with an ambient environment, and in such a process [as Paradowski’s] there would be no reason to do so.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also asserts that Paradowski’s compressor and heat exchanger are situated after the gas stream and that adding a compressor and heat exchanger “would likely warm the gas stream in an ambient air cooler at this position.” Id. These assertions do not persuade us of error in the rejection. As noted above, the Examiner makes clear that the rejection proposes to modify Paradowski with a suitable means for preparing the gas stream before it is input into Paradowski’s system and does not propose to add any compressor or heat exchanger after Paradowski’s expander. Next, Appellant asserts that Paradowski’s system shown in Figure 5 “is a self-contained liquefaction system that relies on a first refrigerant cycle 26 to chill a gas stream to a cryogenic temperature.” Id. at 12. Appellant argues that “[n]othing in Paradowski suggests that cooling to an ambient Appeal 2020-000159 Application 15/348,533 5 temperature prior to a first refrigerant cycle 26 would be desirable” and that “Paradowski teaches away from such a suggestion, as the first refrigerant cycle 26 of Paradowski cools the gas stream directly to a cryogenic temperature.” Id. We are not persuaded. As noted by the Examiner, Paradowski indicates that certain temperature and pressure ranges for the feed stream are required for the feed stream in the system of Figure 1. See Ans. 18 (citing Paradowski ¶ 93). We agree with the Examiner that this at least suggests the same or similar requirements are necessary for the gas stream fed into the system of Figure 5, the system relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection. Id. Further, we are also not persuaded that Paradowski teaches a self-contained system that cannot be modified as the Examiner has proposed. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that certain systems may be required in order to prepare the input gas stream as indicated. For the same reasons, we disagree that Paradowski teaches away from the proposed modification. That Paradowski may or may not teach cooling to a cryogenic temperature does not appear to provide any teaching away from the requirement that the gas stream must be provided to the system at appropriate conditions. Finally, Appellant indicates that the proposed modification of Paradowski would require a re-design of the entire process described in Paradowski. As indicated above, the Examiner does not propose to modify the process of Paradowski and only proposes that it would have been obvious to provide additional steps and equipment to modify the gas stream for suitable input into Paradowski’s system. Based on the foregoing, Appellant has not established any error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2020-000159 Application 15/348,533 6 Appellant relies on the same arguments regarding all claims, and thus, we also sustain the rejections of independent claims 21 and 28 as well as claims 2, 3, 14–16, 18–20, 22, 24, 26, and 27. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–3, 14–16, 18–22, 24, and 26– 28. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 14–16, 18, 21, 24, 26–28 103 Paradowski, Vandor, Whitesell, Minta 1–3, 14–16, 18, 21, 24, 26–28 19, 20, 27 103 Paradowski, Vandor, Whitesell, Minta, Isaacson 19, 20, 27 Overall Outcome 1–3, 14–16, 18–22, 24, 26–28 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED