Ex Parte Ambrosino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 21, 2016

13092401 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/092,401 04/22/2011 Jean Louis AMBROSINO
23599 7590 10/25/2016
MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.
2200 CLARENDON BL VD.
SUITE 1400
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
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.
PET-2691 6489
EXAMINER
AMPONSAH, OSEI K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2016 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 JEAN LOUIS AMBROSINO, FLORENT GUILLOU,
and F AB RICE GIROUDIERE 1
Appeal2015-001744
Application 13/092,401
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MARK NAGUMO, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as IFP Energies Nouvelles.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed April 22, 2011
(Spec.), Final Office Action mailed April 9, 2014 (Final), the Appeal Brief
filed June 10, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed September
11, 2014 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed November 11, 2014 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2015-001744
Application 13/092,401
over TeGrotenhuis3 in view ofDuebel,4 Salvador,5 and Goebel. 6 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a process for the production of electrical or
mechanical energy and heat from a liquid fuel. Claim 1, with reference
numerals from Appellants' Figure, is illustrative:
1. A process for the production of electrical or
mechanical energy and heat from a liquid fuel, said process
compnsmg:
producing a synthetic gas by vaporeforming in a
vaporeforming unit ( 6) that uses liquid fuel and water, wherein
the heat needed for the vaporeforming unit is provided by a
hydrogen burner (16) and by the synthetic gas that is produced,
subjecting the synthetic gas obtained from said
vaporeforming unit ( 6) to a purification stage, wherein the
purification stage comprises
A high-temperature carbon monoxide to water
conversion reaction,
A low-temperature carbon monoxide to water
conversion reaction, and
At least a first preferential oxidation stage for
oxidation of the carbon monoxide contained in the
synthetic gas into carbon dioxide,
dehydrating the synthetic gas from said purification stage
by condensation of the water contained in the synthetic gas [in
10, 11], and recycling condensed water that is obtained during
3 TeGrotenhuis et al., US 7,520,917 B2, issued Apr. 21, 2009 .
4 Duebel et al., US 7,160,638 Bl, issued Jan. 9, 2007.
5 Salvador et al., US 6,432,568 Bl, issued Aug. 13, 2002.
6 Goebel, US 7 ,008, 707 B2, issued Mar. 7, 2006.
2
Appeal2015-001744
Application 13/092,401
the dehydration of the synthetic gas to the vaporeforming unit
(6),
transforming the resultant dehydrated synthetic gas into
electrical energy and into heat in a synthetic gas transformation
stage , wherein the synthetic gas transformation stage produces
an oxygen-poor gaseous effluent that is subjected to
condensation to obtain water, and recycling the water obtained
by condensation of the oxygen-poor gas effluent to the
vaporeforming unit ( 6),
recycling unconverted synthetic gas from the synthetic
gas transformation stage to said hydrogen burner (16) that
supplies heat to the vaporeforming unit ( 6), wherein said
hydrogen burner ( 16) produces a gaseous effluent that is
subjected to condensation [in 17] for obtaining water, and
recycling the water obtained by condensation of the gaseous
effluent from said hydrogen burner (16) to the vaporeforming
unit (6),
wherein after said purification stage and before said
dehydration of the synthetic gas, the synthetic gas is cooled in a
synthetic gas cooling stage, and wherein said synthetic gas
cooling stage is implemented in t\x10 stages:
a first stage wherein said synthetic gas is cooled in
a first heat exchanger (12) by heat exchange with
dehydrated synthetic gas circulating in a pipe ( 110) that
comes from a flash reactor ( 11 ), and
a second stage wherein said synthetic gas is cooled
in a second heat exchanger (19) by a fluid circulating in a
pipe (180) that comes from a secondary cooling circuit
(18).
Appeal Br. 18-19.
3
Appeal2015-001744
Application 13/092,401
OPINION
The claims are directed to a process and require cooling synthetic gas
in a synthetic gas cooling stage. Claim 1. The claims further require that the
synthetic gas cooling stage occur after the purification stage and before the
dehydration of the synthetic gas. Id. Appellants depict and disclose this
two-stage cooling as separate from the purification stage and dehydration
stage. See Figure 1 (depicting two-stage cooling in heat exchangers 12 and
19 as separate from purification in reactors 7a, 7b, 9a, and 9b and also
separate from the cooling tower system 10 and flash reactor 11 of the
dehydration stage); Spec. 12-13. The claims also require that the cooling
stage be implemented in two stages. Id. In the first stage, the synthetic gas
is cooled in a first heat exchanger by heat exchange with dehydrated
synthetic gas circulating in a pipe that comes from a flash reactor. Id. In the
second stage, the synthetic gas is cooled in a second heat exchanger by a
fluid circulating in a pipe that comes from a secondary cooling circuit. Id.
The Examiner finds that TeGrotenhuis teaches various aspects of the
claimed process including a purification stage with a synthetic gas cooling
stage within it. Final 4. According to the Examiner, TeGrotenhuis also
teaches "heat exchangers [218a], [218b] can be configured to use different
heat transfer fluid sources and micro-channels (i.e. two different cooling
mechanisms or a cooling step implemented in two stages) (column 8, lines
54--57)." Id. The Examiner acknowledges that TeGrotenhuis fails to teach
dehydrating the synthetic gas from the purification stage, recycling the
condensed water, or cooling the synthetic gas before dehydrating. Final 4--5.
However, based on the teachings of Duebel, the Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
cool the synthetic gas and then dehydrate the synthetic gas by
4
Appeal2015-001744
Application 13/092,401
Id.
condensation and feed the condensed water back to the fuel
processor in the invention of TeGrotenhuis because Duebel
discloses that such a step can purify the hydrogen gas supplied
to the fuel cell and also renders the system self-sufficient.
First, the heat exchangers 218a and 218b ofTeGrotenhuis are
associated with a purification system (Preferred Oxidation Reaction (PROX)
reactor 200 of Pig. 8) in which the two heat exchangers bring the gas to a
desired temperature for the oxidation process of the purification.
TeGrotenhuis, col. 7, 1. 33 to col. 8, 1. 39. These two heat exchangers are not
associated with a cooling stage that is after the purification stage as required
by claim 1. Appellants point out that "[a]t best, TeGrotenhuis et al. disclose
cooling the synthesis gas in heat exchanger 218d as it is discharged from
oxidation reactor 200. But, this is only a single cooling stage." Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner does not make any findings with regard to heat exchanger
218d.
Second, as pointed out by Appellants, Duebel does not disclose
cooling after the purification stage (in oxidation unit 34) and before
dehydration (in condenser 40). Appeal Br. 10. Duebel discloses injecting
water into oxidation unit 34 by injection device 46 to cool process gas within
the oxidation unit. Duebel, col. 4, 1. 61 to col. 5, 1. 3. Like TeGrotenhuis,
the cooling is taking place within the purification stage (oxidation unit 34),
not after purification.
Third, neither TeGrotenhuis nor Duebel discloses the two cooling
stages required by claim 1 where synthetic gas is cooled in a first heat
exchanger by heat exchange with dehydrated synthetic gas circulating in a
pipe that comes from a flash reactor, and a second stage wherein said
synthetic gas is cooled in a second heat exchanger by a fluid circulating in a
5
Appeal2015-001744
Application 13/092,401
pipe that comes from a secondary cooling circuit. The Examiner provides
no adequate rationale supporting the obviousness of including the specific
two-stage cooling step of claim 1.
Based on the above, Appellants have persuaded us that a
preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner's finding of a
suggestion within the prior art for performing the two-stage cooling step
required by the claims.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6