Ex Parte Knoeppel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2015

12817269 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/817,269 06/17/2010 David Knoeppel
25264 7590 12/11/2015
FINA TECHNOLOGY INC
PO BOX 674412
HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412
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.
COS-1063 RCE 5179
EXAMINER
ENG, ELIZABETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1762
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID KNOEPPEL
Appeal2014-000267
Application 12/817,269 1
Technology Center 1700
Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Fina Technology, Inc.
App. Br. 5.
Appeal2014-000267
Application 12/817,269
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the November 6, 2012
Final Rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant's invention generally relates to an ethylene polymerization
processes which use chromium oxide catalysts in the presence of hydrogen.
(Spec. 1.) Claim 1 is reproduced from the Brief (Claims App.) below:
1. An ethylene polymerization process comprising:
introducing ethylene monomer into a polymerization
reaction zone;
introducing a chromium oxide based catalyst into the
polymerization reaction zone;
introducing a quantity of hydrogen into the
polymerization reaction zone;
contacting the ethylene monomer with the chromium
oxide based catalyst in the polymerization reaction zone in the
presence of hydrogen to form polyethylene, wherein the
polyethylene formed in the presence of hydrogen exhibits an
MI2 that increases with an increasing quantity of hydrogen; and
forming a polyethylene homopolymer, wherein the
quantity of hydrogen added is sufficient to achieve a pre-
determined MI2 of the polyethylene homopolymer.
The Examiner maintains the ground of rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-
15 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Witt et al. (US
5,284,811 issued Feb. 8, 1994) ("Witt"). Final Act. 3; Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-000267
Application 12/817,269
OPINION2
We affirm the appealed rejection for the reasons presented by the
Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following.
Appellant argues Witt does not teach, disclose, or suggest that the
quantity of hydrogen added is sufficient to achieve a pre-determined melt
index of the polyethylene homopolymer as required by the claimed
invention. (App. Br. 12-14.)
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have not recognized the suitability of polymerizing
ethylene in the presence of hydrogen to form polyethylene homopolymers.
Appellant has not disputed the Examiner finding that Witt discloses an
ethylene polymerization process comprising contacting the ethylene
monomer with the chromium oxide based catalyst in the polymerization
reaction zone. (App. Br. 12-14; Ans. 2; Final Act. 3.) Witt discloses adding
hydrogen to the polymerization reaction zone to form polyethylene
polymers. (Col. 2, 11. 4--9; col. 4, 11. 32-35.) vVitt also discloses the
polymerization process is suitable for forming polyethylene homopolymers. 3
(See Ex. 1.) As acknowledged by Appellant, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that hydrogen may be utilized in polymerization
reactions for altering melt index of the resultant polymers. 4 (Spec. i-f 2.)
2 Appellant has not presented specific arguments addressing each of the
rejected claims. We select independent claim 1 as representative of the
subject matter on appeal and will limit our discussion thereto.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
3 It is recognized that Witt's Example 1 does not include hydrogen in the
polymerization process.
4 It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an applicants' specification may be
used in determining the patentability of a claimed invention (In re Nomiya,
509 F.2d 566, 570-71(CCPA1975)); and that consideration of the prior art
3
Appeal2014-000267
Application 12/817,269
Thus, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art is imputed with
knowledge regarding the properties associated with adding hydrogen to the
polymerization reaction zone for ethylene polymerization. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that hydrogen was
suitable for addition to the polymerization reaction zone to form
polyethylene homopolymer for its recognized purposes including achieving
a desired melt index. The subject matter of independent claim 1 is not
limited to a particular melt index.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the reasons given by the Examiner and presented above.
ORDER
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) prior art rejection is affirmed.
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)(l ).
AFFIIUvfED
bar
cited by the Examiner may include consideration of the prior art found in
applicants' specification (In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503(CCPA1962); cf.,
In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
4