GRUPO PETROTEMEX, S.A. DE C.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2021

2020006578 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2021)

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.
14/657,523 03/13/2015 Alan G. WONDERS 444407US23 3289
22850 7590 05/04/2021
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
WHITE, EVERETT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2021 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALAN G. WONDERS

Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOHN G. NEW, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 22–31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. 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 Grupo
Petrotemex, S.A. DE C.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 22–31 and 33 in the Final Action as
follows:
Claims 22 and 24–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Wonders et al. (US 7,816,556 B2, issued Oct. 19, 2010) (“Wonders ’556”)
and Eickhoff et al. (US 6,375,921 B1, issued Apr. 23, 2002 (“Eickhoff”).
Final Act. 3.
Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view Wonders ’556,
Eickhoff, and Wonders et al. (US 2006/0205976 A1, published Sept. 14,
2006) (“Wonders ’976”). Final Act. 7.
Claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view Wonders ’556,
Eickhoff, and Wonders et al. (US 2007/0155985 A1, published July 5, 2007)
(“Wonders ’985”). Final Act. 8.
Claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view Wonders ’556 and
Eickhoff. Final Act. 9.
Independent claim 22 is representative and is reproduced below:
22. An oxidative digestion system, comprising:
a series of at least two oxidative digestion zones arranged
vertically in one bubble column reactor;
a reactant inlet located in a lower portion of the first
uppermost digestion zone;
oxygen gas supply inlets to the first uppermost digestion
zone and at least one zone in series vertically beneath the first
uppermost zone;
at least one horizontal baffle located between the first
uppermost zone and the second zone vertically beneath;
at least one horizontal baffle located between each
respective vertically adjacent zones when more than one zone is
present beneath the first uppermost zone;
a product slurry outlet at the bottom of the at least one
bubble column;
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

3
wherein
the oxidative digestion system is in downstream reaction
flow from a primary oxidation reactor and receives a crude
reaction product from the primary oxidation reactor,
each oxygen gas supply comprises a gas distributor unit
which feeds the oxygen gas into the zone as a bubbly flow
having an upward superficial gas velocity of from 4 cm/s to 10
cm/sec,
each horizontal baffle comprises a tray having multiple
inverted shaped sloped surfaces with multiple open areas such
that less than 50% of a total of upwardly-facing exposed outer
surface area of the horizontal baffle comprises planar surface
inclined less than 35° from horizontal, and
the series of at least two oxidative digestion zones
arranged vertically in one bubble column reactor is free of
mechanical agitation.

An oral hearing was held on April 8, 2021. A transcript of the hearing
will be entered into the record in due course.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claim 22
Claim 22 is directed to an oxidative digestion system. The system
comprises two oxidative digestion zones arranged vertically in one bubble
column reactor with horizontal baffles dividing the zones. The system has
oxygen supply inlets. The oxidative digestion zones are “arranged vertically
in one bubble column reactor [which] is free of mechanical agitation.” The
oxidation digestion zones are also downstream from a primary oxidation
reactor.
The Examiner rejected the claim over the combination of Wonders
’556 and Eickhoff. Wonders ’556 describes “(a) subjecting a multiphase
reaction medium to oxidation in a primary oxidation zone under primary
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

4
oxidation conditions sufficient to produce an initial slurry,” “(b) subjecting
at least a portion of the initial slurry to oxidative digestion in a first digestion
zone under first digestion conditions sufficient to produce a first digestion
product slurry,” and “(c) subjecting at least a portion of the first digestion
product slurry to oxidative digestion in a second digestion zone under
second digestion conditions sufficient to produce a second digestion product
slurry.” Wonders ’556, 3:33–52.
The Examiner found that Wonders ’556 describes an oxidation
digestion system (see (b) and (c) described above) with substantially all the
features of the claimed system, but not where each baffle “comprises a tray
having multiple inverted shaped sloped surfaces with multiple open areas
such that less than 50% of a total of upwardly-facing exposed outer surface
area of the horizontal baffle comprises planar surface inclined less than 35°
from horizontal” as recited in the claim. Final Act. 3–4, 6. The Examiner
found, however, that Eickhoff describes a baffle with this structure. Final
Act. 6. The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified
Wonders ’556 with the horizontal baffles described in Eickhoff to improve
the mixing of the reactants in the reactor and the efficiency of the process.
Id.
Appellant argues that Wonders ’566, throughout its disclosure at
columns 79–83, “describes the need for sufficient mechanical agitation such
that the digestion reaction medium is well mixed with respect to the liquid
phase and solids therein.” Appeal Br. 7. To support this argument,
Appellant specifically cites to 79:4–67, 81:47–65, and 82:17–24 of Wonders
’556, where mechanical agitation is described. Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

5
This argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
that mechanical agitation is not necessary for Wonders ’556 oxidative
digestion system. Appellant’s Specification does not provide a definition of
“mechanical agitation.” However, it appears to be a well-known term of art
regarding the mixing of reactants in the chemical arts and is defined in both
Wonders ’556 and ’976. We therefore rely on the following definition:
As used herein, the term “mechanical agitation” shall denote
agitation of the reaction medium caused by physical movement
of a rigid or flexible element(s) against or within the reaction
medium. For example, mechanical agitation can be provided by
rotation, oscillation, and/or vibration of internal stirrers,
paddles, vibrators, or acoustical diaphragms located in the
reaction medium.
Wonders ’556 7:4–11; see also Wonders ’976, ¶ 57.
As found by the Examiner, Wonders ’556 has the following
disclosure:
To achieve the preferred balance of RTD2 parameters, a
limitless number of mechanical configurations may be
employed, of which a few examples follow. One such
embodiment is where the mass of reaction medium of all
oxidative digestion stages present in a TPA process is split
essentially equally into three portions that are situated within
three approximately identical pressure containing enclosures.
Each comprises mechanical agitation sufficient to be well
mixed with respect to liquid-phase and solid compositions
therein.
Wonders ’556, 79:4–13.

2 RTD is the residence time distribution of the solid and/or liquid phase of
the reaction medium subjected to oxidative digestion. Wonders ’556 77:35–
37.
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

6
This disclosure states that “a limitless number of mechanical
configurations may be employed,” and describes “one such embodiment”
that involves splitting the reaction medium of all oxidative reaction stages
into three portions in identical pressure containing enclosures each enclosure
which “comprises mechanical agitation” to achieve sufficient mixing of the
reaction medium portion. Based on this statement, we do not understand
Wonders ’556 to suggest that mechanical agitation is required in all the
possible “mechanical configurations” that “may be employed” to achieve the
preferred balance of residence time distribution parameters of the reaction
medium. Id. Rather, “mechanical agitation” is one mixing process
described for certain mechanical configurations. Consistently, at column 83
of Wonders ’556, which Appellant acknowledges is part of the discussion of
oxidative digestion,3 Wonders ’556 discloses:
In an alternative embodiment of the present invention,
the digestion reaction medium is agitated by at least one
mechanical apparatus having at least one inlet and at least one
outlet but no moving part, though process fluid flows through
it. Such devices commonly include at least one stationary
element encased within a pipe or other flow conduit, and such
devices are known in the art by various designations including
motionless mixers and static mixers. Preferably, the motionless
mixer comprises a multiplicity of stationary elements.
Wonders ’556, 83:22–30 (emphasis added).
This description of an “alternative embodiment” excludes
“mechanical agitation” as that term would be understood (Wonders ’976,

3 “Appellants maintain that a careful reading of Wonders shows that actual
description of the structure digestion unit or system begins in Col. 79 and
continues to Col. 83.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

7
¶ 57) because there is “no moving part” (Wonders ’556, 83:25). Thus, the
evidence does not support Appellant’s argument that mechanical agitation is
required by Wonders ’556.
Appellant also argues that Wonders ’556 does not describe “at least
two oxidative digestion zones arranged vertically in one bubble column
reactor” as required by claim 22. Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner cited the bubble column reactor 952, described in Fig.
26 and column 75, lines 39–42, as an example of a bubble reactor at the
oxidative digestion stage. Final Act. 4. Specifically, Wonders ’556 discloses:
FIG. 26 depicts a bubble column early oxidative digestion stage
952 following the primary oxidation stage 950 (e.g., as
disclosed in FIGS. 15-16 and description relating thereto).
Wonders ’556, 75:39–42.
Thus, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Wonders ’556 teaches that a
bubble column reactor can be employed at the oxidative digestion stage.
Appellant did not identify a defect in this finding or the Examiner’s
reasoning.
Appellant also contends that the recited horizontal baffle limitation
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on
Wonders ’556 and Eickhoff. Appellant states that Eickhoff describes a
“different chemistry and a different phase combination,” namely, “a two
phase primary oxidation process and is not related to a three phase oxidative
digestion process [of Wonders ’556] wherein solid particles are partially
dissolved to expose unoxidized or partially oxidized components to oxygen
gas in a solvent to obtain further oxidation.” Appeal Br. 10. For this reason,
Appellant contends that “one would never consult to this reference to modify
the system of Wonders [’556].” Id.
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

8
We are not persuaded by this argument that it would not have been
obvious to use Eickhoff’s baffle as the baffle in Wonders ’556. The
Examiner’s rationale is based on the reasoning that Wonders ’556 describes
the use of a horizontal baffle in its reactor, providing the motivation to pick
known horizontal baffle for its expected advantage in improving mixing.
Final Act. 6. While Eickhoff may describe a different process and different
chemistry, it still discloses a conventional type of baffle that was used in the
art in columns at the time the instant application was filed to improve
mixing. Id. As held in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007):
[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. .
. . [A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
Appellant did not identify a defect in the Examiner’s fact-finding or
reasoning.
For the forging reasons, the rejection of claim 22 as obvious based on
Wonders ’556 and Eickhoff is affirmed. Appellant did not argue dependent
claims 24–30 separately. Consequently, these claims fall with claim 22. 37
C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from Claim 22, and recites that the oxidative
digestion system further comprises “an exhaust gas outlet having an oxygen
content monitoring system.” The Examiner further cited Wonders ’976 as
meeting this limitation of the claim. Final Act. 8. The Examiner concluded it
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

9
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Wonders ’556 and Eickhoff “to provide an exhaust gas
outlet having an oxygen monitoring system, as taught by Wonders ’976 . . .
to provide an optimized process and apparatus for more efficiently and
economically producing purified terephthalic acid.” Id.
Appellant argues the process of Wonders ’976 is different from the
process in Wonders ’556 and that Wonders ’976 “never addresses a problem
associated with oxidative digestion.” Appeal Br. 11. For this reason,
Appellant states there would be “no suggestion or motivation to apply such
pilot plant study to the system of the present invention.” Id.
As explained in KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–420, “any need or problem
known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the
patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
claimed.” Appellant did not address the Examiner’s reason for modifying the
process nor identify a defect in the Examiner’s reasoning. Rather, Appellant
has focused its argument on the Wonders ’976 alone when the rejection is
based on a combination of publications.
For the forging reasons, the rejection of claim 23 as obvious based on
Wonders ’556, Eickhoff, and Wonders ’976 is affirmed.

Claim 31
Claim 31 depends from claim 22 and further recites that “each
horizontal baffle comprises open area of from 25 to 75 % of the total
horizontal area of the baffle.” The Examiner found that Wonders ’985
describes a baffle that meets the claim limitation. Final Act. 9. The Examiner
determined it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

10
the time of the invention to provide the baffle of Wonders ’985 to the
column used in the process of Wonders ’556 and Eickhoff “to provide an
optimized process and apparatus for more efficiently and economically
production of purified terephthalic acid.” Id.
Appellant contends “paragraph [0135] as cited by the Office describes
an apparatus for primary oxidation of para-xylene. The secondary internal
reactor 210 is not a baffle (see [0127]) and is not even related to a baffle. It
is an oxidation reactor.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred.
Paragraph 135 of Wonders ’985 refers to an opening 224 of a reaction vessel
that is within a second reaction vessel, which Wonders’ 985 refers to as the
internal reaction vessel, where the opening permits flow of material from the
outer vessel to the internal vessel. That paragraph also indicates that the
“ratio of the open area” of the opening to the “horizontal cross sectional
area” of the reaction zone of the internal reaction vessel can be 10%, 20% or
50% (Final Act. 9) that meets the limitations of claim 33. Appellant did not
provide evidence that these openings in the internal vessel do not meet the
definition of a “baffle” as that term would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art. Specifically, Wonders ’556 refers to a wall baffle as a
structure supported by the walls of a reactor (at col. 82, lines 55–57);
Appellant did not provide adequate arguments or evidence that such
openings preferably “near the top” of the reactor do not meet the definition
of a baffle or make obvious a baffle, but rather focuses on the fact that the
internal reactor 210 in Wonders ’985 is not a baffle, and is used as an
oxidation reactor not for a digestion operation. However, the Examiner is not
identifying the reactor as a baffle, but rather is specifically pointing to the
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

11
openings as a baffle and explained why such a structure would have been
obvious to use in Wonders ’556. Final Act. 9. Because Appellant did not
identify a defect in the Examiner’s factual finding regarding the opening
being equivalent to the recited baffle of claim 31 as discussed above, the
rejection of claim 31 is affirmed.

Claim 33
Appellant argued claim 33 in a separately titled section, but the
arguments are the same as for claim 22. Appeal Br. 13. Consequently, the
rejection of claim 33 is affirmed for the same reasons.

Dependent claims
To the extent any dependent claims are not argued separately, they fall
with claim 22. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
22, 24–30 103 Wonder ’556,
Eickhoff
22, 24–30
23 103 Wonder ’556,
Eickhoff,
Wonders ’976
23
31 103 Wonder ’556,
Eickhoff,
Wonders ’985
31
33 103 Wonder ’556,
Eickhoff
33
Overall
Outcome
22–31, 33
Appeal 2020-006578
Application 14/657,523

12

TIME PERIOD
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