Carolus Van De Lisdonk et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 27, 2020

2020002436 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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.
13/133,167 06/07/2011 Carolus Antonius Cornelis Van De Lisdonk TS9651-US-PCT 1108
23632 7590 11/27/2020
SHELL OIL COMPANY
P O BOX 576
HOUSTON, TX 77001-0576
EXAMINER
NICHOLS, CHARLES W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2020 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):
Shelldocketing@cpaglobal.com
USPatents@Shell.com
shellusdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CAROLUS ANTONIUS CORNELIS VAN DE LISDONK and
JOANNES ALPHONSUS MARIA WIEGERINCK
____________

Appeal 2020-002436
Application 13/133,167
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision
to reject claims 1, 5–13, and 15–19, which constitute all pending claims in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies “Shell Oil Company” as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002436
Application 13/133,167

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, “[t]he present invention provides a method of
operating a compressor, for the reduction of relief load during a blocked
outlet event, and an apparatus for the reduction of relief load during a
blocked outlet event of a compressor.” Spec. 1. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of operating a compressor, for the reduction of relief
load during a blocked outlet event, comprising at least the steps
of:

(a) passing one or more compressor feed streams to one or more
inlets of a first compressor, each compressor feed stream passing
through a compressor feed valve, wherein there are n compressor
feed streams passing through n compressor feed valves and n
inlets, in which n is an integer in the range of from 2 to 6;

(b) compressing the one or more compressor feed streams in the first
compressor to provide a compressed discharge stream at a
discharge pressure at the outlet of the first compressor, passing n
recycle streams taken from the compressed discharge stream to
the respective compressor feed streams between the respective
compressor feed valves and the respective inlets of the first
compressor;

(c) monitoring for a first indicator of a blocked outlet event of the
first compressor, said monitoring comprising measuring the
discharge pressure, and the first indicator at least comprising the
discharge pressure exceeding a selected discharge pressure; and

(d) instructing the shutting of the n compressor feed valves upon
detection of the first indicator of the first compressor blocked
outlet event.
Appeal Br. 11, Claims App.
Appeal 2020-002436
Application 13/133,167

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 10, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rust (US 3,527,059, iss. Sept. 8, 1970) and
Mehaffey (US 5,967,761, iss. Oct. 19, 1999).
II. Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rust, Mehaffey, and Lucas et al. (US
2005/0022552 A1, pub. Feb. 3, 2005) (“Lucas”).
III. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rust, Mehaffey, Lucas, and Narayanan et al. (US 7,594,386 B2,
iss. Sept. 29, 2009) (“Narayanan”).
IV. Claims 11, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rust, Mehaffey, and Mak et al. (US
2007/0125122 A1, June 7, 2007) (“Mak”).

OPINION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 10, 13, 15, and 18
In contesting the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 as
unpatentable over Rust and Mehaffey, Appellant first argues that “Mehaffey
lacks any indication or suggestion that ‘the inlet valve 65c’ would be
anything other than a single valve. . . . Thus, Rust, Mehaffey, and Rust in
view of Mehaffey all lack a disclosure of, at least, instructing the shutting of
the n compressor feed valves upon detection of the first indicator of the first
compressor blocked outlet event (wherein n is an integer in the range of
from 2-6).” Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2020-002436
Application 13/133,167

4
The Examiner responds
that even though Mehaffey only teaches monitoring a single feed
valve, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to
apply the control system of Mehaffey to a multi compressors
system having plural feed valves as this would be equivalent to
a mere duplication of working parts. As it has been held, mere
duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new
and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669,
124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Answer 22.
We are unpersuaded of error because Appellant has not disputed or
otherwise explained why the Examiner’s reasoning and reliance on In re
Harza is flawed as applied to the rejection of record. Without specifically
addressing the Examiner’s rationale, Appellant’s response fails to
demonstrate error in the rejection of claims 1 and 13. See also Answer 6, 8
(citing In re Harza in the rejection of claims 1 and 13).
Further, Appellant argues that “Rust in view of Mehaffey lacks
incentive to modify” (Appeal Br. 6) because “[b]oth Rust and Mehaffey lack
any reference to flaring or related events downstream of their respective
compressor systems.” Id. at 7 (“The flare system must be sized to handle the
anticipated relief load for such an event. The piping and flare system may
account for considerable capital expenditure. It is therefore desirable to
minimise [sic] the size of the piping and flare system required to handle such
flows.”). “Consequently, [Appellant argues,] both Rust and Mehaffey lack
any suggestion or hint to modify their respective disclosures to arrive at the
method or apparatus of claim 1 and 13 respectively.” Id. at 7 (“Rust lacks
any reference to downstream flaring or similar safety systems.”).
Appeal 2020-002436
Application 13/133,167

5
Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner states the
rejections outline that “the combination of Rust and Mehaffey teaches
actively monitoring for a first indicator of a blocked outlet event, that is,
noting that the discharge pressure exceeds a selected discharge pressure; and
Lucas teaches why it is a beneficial to have a flaring system for such
blocked event.” Answer 22–23.
Appellant’s argument fails to apprise us of error at least because it’s
not commensurate with the scope of claims 1 and 13. Claims 1 and 13 do
not recite a flare system, and, as such, the Examiner did not rely on Rust or
Mehaffey for any reference to flaring. Rather, as the Examiner points out,
the rejections of claims 16 and 17, which recite “a flare system,” rely upon
Lucas for that teaching. See Final Act. 9–13; see also Answer 10–15. For
instance, the Examiner relies on paragraph 12 of Lucas in combining the
references, which discloses:
If the compressor discharge is blocked by an unexpected process
event, the compressed refrigerant typically is discharged to a
piping and flare system, which must be sized to handle
anticipated relief flows during such an event. It is desirable to
minimize the size of the piping and flare system required to
handle such flows. It also may be desirable for economic and
environmental reasons to minimize the amount of gas flared
during process upsets or compressor discharge blockage events.
See Final Act. 11.
Accordingly, because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. We also sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 10, 15, and 18 for the same reasons, which are
not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 9.

Rejection II
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 17
Regarding dependent claims 16 and 17, Appellant argues:
Rust, Mehaffey and Lucas all lack suggestions to further
modify their respective disclosures. Justification for further
modification of Rust in view of Mehaffey in further view of
Lucas are also absent in the Office Action. As a result, it must be
concluded that Rust in view of Mehaffey in further view of Lucas
lacks, at least, a disclosure of flare system or relief valve, wherein
one or both of the pressure relief valve and flare system is sized
to accommodate less than the flow generated from the
compression of all of the n compressor feed streams in the first
compressor.
Appeal Br. 8–9.
The Examiner responds:
In this case, the compressors of Rust would be better modulated
resulting in a better overall system as outlined in the above
rejections. The examiner has shown how the combination of Rust
and Mehaffey teaches actively monitoring for a first indicator of
a blocked outlet event, that is, noting that the discharge pressure
exceeds a selected discharge pressure; and Lucas teaches why it
is a beneficial to have a flaring system for such blocked event.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made, to combine Rust
Mehaffey and Lucas . . . .
Answer 23. We are persuaded of Examiner error as to claims 16 and 17.
The Examiner’s response fails to adequately provide a reasoned
rationale as to why the modified Rust and Mehaffey apparatus is further
modified and combined with Lucas to teach “wherein the one or both of the
pressure relief valve and flare system is sized to accommodate less than the
flow generated from the compression of all of the n compressor feed streams
in the first compressor,” as required by claims 16 and 17. In rejecting this
limitation of claims 16 and 17 in the Final Office Action, the Examiner
Appeal 2020-002436
Application 13/133,167

7
states “because of the claim language ‘at least’ and the fact that the relief
system of Lucas deals with ALL of the compressor material the claim
language is met.” Final Act. 10–13. In the rejection of this limitation of
claims 16 and 17 provided in the Answer, the Examiner appears to have
modified that statement to:
Since the one or both of the pressure relief valve and flare system
of Rust/Mehaffey/Lucas are sized to accommodate all the flow
generated from the compression of all of the n compressor feed
streams in the first compressor, it is obvious that they can
accommodate less than the flow generated from the compression
of all of the n compressor feed streams in the first compressor.
Answer 12, 14 (emphasis added). We find the Examiner’s rationale to
combine the teachings of the references is predicated upon a conclusory
statement that lacks articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. We are persuaded that “Rust in
view of Mehaffey in further view of Lucas lacks sufficient teaching for an
obviousness rejection of claim 16 and claim 17.” Appeal Br. 9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17.
We sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, and 9, which are not argued
separately, for the reasons discussed above because these claims are argued
based on their dependency to independent claims 1 and 13. See id.
Rejection III & IV
Claims 7, 11, 12, and 19
We also sustain the rejections of claims 7, 11, 12, and 19, which are
not argued separately, for the reasons discussed because these claims are
argued based on their dependency to independent claims 1 and 13. See id.

Appeal 2020-002436
Application 13/133,167

8
CONCLUSION
The decision to reject claims 1, 5–13, 15, 18, and 19 is affirmed.
The decision to reject claims 16 and 17 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 10, 13,
15, 18
103(a) Rust, Mehaffey 1, 10, 13,
15, 18

5, 6, 8, 9,
16, 17
103(a) Rust, Mehaffey,
Lucas
5, 6, 8, 9 16, 17
7 103(a) Rust, Mehaffey,
Lucas, Narayanan
7
11, 12, 19 103(a) Rust, Mehaffey,
Mak
11, 12, 19
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–13, 15,
18, 19
16, 17

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED IN PART