Ex Parte Morrow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2016

12964163 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/964,163 12/09/2010
27182 7590 03/17/2016
PRAXAIR, INC.
LAW DEPARTMENT- Ml-04
39 OLD RIDGEBURY ROAD
DANBURY, CT 06810-5113
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JEFFREY M. MORROW
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.
13054-US 4250
EXAMINER
NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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 JEFFREY M. MORROW,
MONICA ZANFIR, and RAYMOND F. DRNEVICH
Appeal2014-004921
Application 12/964, 163
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, GEORGE C. BEST, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-13 of Application 12/964,163
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (January 3, 2013).
Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Praxair Technology, Inc., is identified as the real party in interest.
Amended Brief 3 (filed October 17, 2013) (hereinafter "Br.").
Appeal2014-004921
Application 12/964, 163
BACKGROUND
The '163 Application describes processes and systems for production
of synthesis gas and/or hydrogen by steam reformation. Spec. iJ 1. In
particular, the process uses an integrated two-level steam system to manage
heat recovery to increase energy efficiency. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the '163 Application's claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of Appellants' Amended Brief:
1. A process for the steam reforming of hydrocarbons to
produce hydrogen using a reformer, a water shift reactor, and a
hydrogen PSA and incorporating an integrated steam system for
processing boiler feed water and steam, the steam system being
in fluid communication with the process for steam reforming,
the process comprising:
heating boiler feed water to form a heated boiler feed
water;
deaerating the heated boiler feed water to make a treated
boiler feed water;
pressurizing the treated boiler feed water to make a
pressurized boiler feed water;
heating substantially the entire pressurized boiler feed
water to near boiling temperature to produce a high pressure
heated boiler feed water;
separating the high pressure heated boiler feed water into
at least a first portion and a second portion;
feeding the first portion of the high pressure heated boiler
feed water to a high pressure steam unit to make saturated boiler
feed water to produce high pressure steam;
feeding the second portion of the high pressure heated
boiler feed water to a low pressure steam unit for making a low
pressure steam, wherein the high pressure heated boiler feed
water is depressurized before going to the low pressure steam
unit; and
2
Appeal2014-004921
Application 12/964, 163
sending at least part of the low pressure steam and the high
pressure steam to one or more applications within the process for
steam reforming or outside the process for steam reforming.
Br. 16-17.
REJECTIONS
On appeal,2 the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Pham3 and
West. 4 Final Act. 3.
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Pham, West, and Bellows.5 Final Act. 12.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, and
13 as unpatentable over the combination of Pham and West. Final Act. 3.
2 After entry of the Final Action, Appellants amended the '163 Application's
claims. Amendment 2-6 (March 18, 2013). In particular, Appellants
amended independent claims 1 and 10 and canceled claims 2, 7, and 11. Id.
at 6. In summarizing the outstanding rejections, we have adjusted the
description of the claims subject to each rejection to reflect the cancellation
of claims 2, 7, and 11.
Furthermore, we note that Appellants did not amend claims 3-5. See
id. As a result of this failure, these claims either directly or indirectly
depend from canceled claim 2. For the purpose of this opinion, we assume
that Appellants intended to amend claim 3 to depend from claim 1.
3 US 7,377,951 B2, issued May 27, 2008.
4 US 3,298,359, issued January 17, 1967.
5 US 2006/0086248 Al, published April 27, 2006.
3
Appeal2014-004921
Application 12/964, 163
Appellants argue for reversal of this rejection with respect to all of the
claims as an undifferentiated group. See Br. 11-14. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as representative of this group. All of the remaining claims subject
to this rejection will stand or fall with claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Pham describes steam
reforming of hydrocarbons using a reformer, a water shift reactor, and a
hydrogen pressure swing adsorption apparatus (PSA). Final Act. 3 (citing
Pham col. 1, 11. 13-23; claim l; Fig. 2); see also Pham col. 7, 1. 60-col. 8,
1. 34 (describing Fig. 2). The Examiner further found that that Pham' s
process includes the steps of heating boiler feed water, preparing boiler feed
water, and separating the heated boiler feed water into two portions to be fed
to a high-pressure steam generating unit and a low-pressure steam
generating unit for use either within the steam reformation process or outside
the steam reformation process. Id. The Examiner expressly found that
Pham does not explicitly teach pressurizing the prepared boiler feed water
and heating substantially all of the pressurized, prepared boiler feed water
before dividing the heated water stream to supply both high- and low-
pressure steam systems. Id. The Examiner, however, also found that West
teaches passing an entire deaerated water stream through a heat exchanger
and pump thereby pressurizing the water stream before sending it to a steam
generator. Id. (citing West col. 2, 11. 36--40).
Relying on these factual determinations, the Examiner reasoned that a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
found it obvious to eliminate one of the two pumps in Pham' s process in
view of the use of a single pump in West's process. Id. at 3--4 (citing MPEP
§ 2144.04(II)A; Pham col. 9, 11. 37-38). Thus, the Examiner concluded that
the differences between the subject matter of claim 1, considered as a whole,
4
Appeal2014-004921
Application 12/964, 163
and the prior art would have been unpatentably obvious at the time of the
invention.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed
because the combination of Pham and West does not describe a process in
which steam exiting a boiler feed water heater is separated into two streams
one of which is depressurized prior to sending to a low-pressure steam
generating unit. Br. 13. In particular, Appellants argue that Pham describes
dividing the prepared boiler feed water into two streams. Id. at 11. One of
the two streams is used to feed a low pressure steam generation system,
while the other stream is used to feed a high-pressure steam generation
system. Id. Appellants further argue that West does not remedy the
deficiencies in Pham's description: "R.C. West et al. does not disclose or
suggest a process where industry exiting the BFW heater is separated into
two streams, one of which is depressurized prior to sending to the low-
pressure unit." Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As the Examiner
points out, West was not cited as describing dividing the stream exiting the
BFW heater. Answer 3. Appellants' argument, therefore, does not address
the substance of the Examiner's rejection.
We have reviewed the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over the
combination of Pham and West. After this review, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner reversibly erred in concluding that the differences between the
subject matter of claim 1 taken as a whole and the prior art would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claim 1.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claim 5 as unpatentable over the
combination of Pham, West, and Bellows. Final Act. 12-13. Appellants
5
Appeal2014-004921
Application 12/964, 163
argue that this rejection should be reversed because the addition of Bellows
"does not cure the deficiencies in Pham et al. or R.C. West et al." Br. 14.
As discussed above, we are not persuaded that the combination of
Pham and West is deficient when used as a basis for rejecting claim 1. We,
therefore, also affirm the rejection of claim 5.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3,
4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13 of the' 163 Application as unpatentable over the
combination of Pham and West. We also affirm the rejection of claim 5 as
unpatentable over the combination of Pham, West, and Bellows.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6