Ex Parte Agrawal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2016

12325360 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/325,360 12/01/2008
32583 7590 08/04/2016
KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC
601 Jefferson Street
KT3784
HOUSTON, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ravindra K. Agrawal
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.
08-04 1352
EXAMINER
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2016 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):
IPLegal@kbr.com
patsi.davis@kbr.com
Shirley.Fontenot@kbr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RA VINDRA K. AGRA WAL and JAY ACHANDRAN
CHANDRASEKARAN
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 21-25. We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Kellogg Brown &
Root LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as relating to gasification of
carbonaceous material in a manner that produces less carbon monoxide and
more carbon dioxide. Spec. i-fi-f l--4, 74, 75. The carbonaceous material
could be, for example, coal or carbon waste material. Spec. i1 21. The
resulting product is synthesis gas also known as syngas. Spec. i12. The
apparatus for Appellants' gasification is depicted in Figure 1, reproduced
below:
+
':21} :-·- 135 n l b .. ,.,
' :-· ~15 ' ,.
,~~ 1, l,
1
- ,. •
... L ...... i ........... ~
t~::--·--7 I
10e ; ., ,.. r··- 1 m ;
.. : ... V;J·············································;
f·"· 10ll
FIG.1
Figure 1 depicts an illustrative gasifier for gasifying a carbonaceous material
according to one or more embodiments of the Specification. Spec. i1 6.
Claim 12, reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight
disputed claim recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
12. A method for processing a carbonaceous material comprising:
combining a carbonaceous material and water in a mixing
zone to provide a slurried mixture comprising 30 wt0/o to 45 wt%
water;
introducing the slurried mixture to a reactor;
gasifying a portion of the slurried mixture in the reactor in the
presence of a combustion gas in a vertically oriented gasification zone
to provide carbonaceous solids and a syngas comprising hydrogen,
carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, wherein the syngas has a
temperature of from about 400°C to about l ,650°C;
selectively separating at least a portion of the carbonaceous
solids from the syngas in a separation zone to provide a syngas
product and carbonaceous solids; and
combusting at least a portion of the carbonaceous solids in the
presence of an oxidant in a vertically oriented combustion zone
disposed below the gasification zone to provide at least a portion of
the combustion gas, wherein the oxidant is air or oxygen, and
wherein the oxidant is present in an amount from about 6% to
about 90% of the stoichiometric oxygen required to oxidize the
total amount of carbonaceous solids.
Appeal Br. 2 19--20 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Donath et al.
Cole
Rundstrom
Bohn et al.
Olah et al.
us 3,782,913
us 3,996,026
us 5,226,927
US 2002/0120017 Al
US 2007 /0254969 Al
Jan. 1, 1974
Dec. 7, 1976
July 13, 1993
Aug. 29, 2002
Nov. 1, 2007
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed February 5,
2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed August 15, 2014 ("Appeal Br."),
the Examiner's Answer mailed October 30, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply
Brief filed December 30, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-12, 16-18, 21-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Donath in view of Rundstrom and Cole. Ans. 2;
Final Act. 2.
Rejection 2. Claims 3---6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Donath in view of Rundstrom and further in view of Bohn
and Olah. Final Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
We sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections based on the findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well-expressed by the
Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. We provide additional
comments below for emphasis.
The Examiner rejects all claims at issue, claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-18, and
21-25, based on the combination of Donath, Rundstrom, and Cole.
Appellants do not present arguments regarding Bohn or Olah, so we
consider the Examiner's rejections together. Appellants also do not
separately argue claims 2--4, 6, 11-14, 18, or 23-25. We therefore first
focus on independent claim 12. Claims 1--4, 6, 11, 13, 14, 18, or 23-25
stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
The Examiner applies Donath as the primary obviousness reference
against all claims. Donath teaches a method of gasifying coal in a reactor to
produce a syngas. Final Act. 2. Donath's apparatus is depicted in the Figure
reproduced below:
4
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
The Figure above is an illustration of an apparatus adapted for use of
Donath's process. Donath 3:11-13.
The Examiner finds that Donath does not disclose a range from 6% to
90% of stoichiometric oxygen. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds, however,
that Rundstrom suggests use of 20o/o-30% stoichiometric oxygen in a
gasification process and concludes that it would have been obvious to utilize
5
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
the partial oxidation conditions of Rundstrom to partially oxidize the
carbonaceous material of Donath. Id. at 3--4. As explained below, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding.
Rundstrom teaches introducing 20% to 30% of the stoichiometric
combustion requirements for its carbonaceous (wood) material and teaches
that this oxygen results in "partial oxidation of the wood material."
Rundstrom 9:29-35. The partial oxidation (partial because the carbon is
converted to carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide) results in
"synthesis gas" (i.e., a gaseous mixture including carbon monoxide and
hydrogen). Rundstrom Abstract; 2:44--47; 9:36-56; Final Act. 3. Donath
likewise is directed at reacting carbonaceous material with oxygen to
produce synthesis gas. Donath 3:50-64; Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3. Because
Donath seeks production of synthesis gas just like Rundstrom, it would have
been obvious to apply a sub-stoichiometric amount of oxygen as taught in
Rundstrom to achieve this result. Final Act. 3--4; see also Spec. i-f 2 (stating
that in "Related Art" gasification of carbonaceous material typically
involves reacting the material in an "oxygen-starved" atmosphere).
Combining Rundstrom's teaching regarding sub-stoichiometric oxygen with
Donath appears to be no more than a predictable use of a prior art element
according to established function. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007). We therefore agree with the Examiner that the
combination is obvious.
Appellants argue that Donath does not suggest use of a sub-
stoichiometric amount of oxygen and that introduction of Rundstrom' s
amount of oxygen into Donath would undermine Donath's rapid char
gasification process. Appeal Br. 11-12, 16; Reply Br. 2-3. We disagree.
6
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
Donath and Rundstrom are both directed at production of synthesis gas.
Synthesis gas includes carbon monoxide (Rundstrom 9:53-55), and it would
have been obvious to introduce a sub-stoichiometric amount of gas (as
taught by Rundstrom at 9:28-35) to encourage oxidation of carbon to carbon
monoxide (i.e., one oxygen per carbon) as opposed to carbon dioxide (two
oxygens per carbon). Ans. 2-3. Moreover, Appellants present no
persuasive evidence that introduction of a sub-stoichiometric amount of
oxygen would disrupt Donath's gasification process. Thus, a preponderance
of the evidence does not support Appellants' argument.
The Examiner also finds that Donath does not teach a slurried feed to
the gasifier with water content between 30-45%. Final Act. 4. Cole,
however, teaches a slurry feed into a gasifier with 35-55% water content.
Id.; Cole 2:23-29. Cole is intended for use in a gasifier for production of
synthesis gas just like the gasifier taught by Donath. Cole 1 :8-12; see also
id. at 1:58-68 (explaining how slurry is added to the gasification reactor).
Cole's use of a slurry makes the carbon mixture easy to transport. Id. at
2:19-24. Use of Cole's slurry feed in the gasifier of Donath is no more than
predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions, and
we thus agree with the Examiner that this combination would have been
obvious. KSR Int'! Co., 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant argues that the slurry of Cole would render Donath
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because the water slurry feed would
not provide superheated steam and/or would quench Donath's process.
Appeal Br. 12-14, 16; Reply Br. 4--5. However, we agree with the
Examiner that steam injection of Donath is separate from the coal feed. Ans.
4; Donath Figure. Moreover, Cole is intended for use with a gasifier and
7
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
explains how its carbon slurry is introduced to a gasifier. Cole 1 :58---68.
Accordingly, Appellants' argument is not supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
We thus sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 11-14, 18,
or 23-25.
Appellants make a separate argument with respect to claims 5, 7, 9,
10, 16, 17, 21, and 22. Appeal Br. 14--17, Reply Br. 5-6. The Examiner
rejected each of these claims as obvious under Donath in view of Rundstrom
and Cole. As a threshold matter, we note that although claim 5 is argued
under a separate heading, Appellants' argument is essentially the same.
Appeal Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6.
Each of claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, and 22 recite carbon monoxide
and compositions for the syngas. Claims 21 and 22 also recite hydrogen
composition for the syngas. With respect to these claims, Appellants argue
that the syngas composition recitations are not taught or suggested by any
combination of Donath, Rundstrom, and Cole. Appeal Br. 14, 16.
Appellants also argue that Donath does not discuss mole percentage
composition of syngas and Rundstrom's composition is different than the
recited percentages. Appeal Br. 14--17. With respect to claims 5, 7, 10, and
1 7, Appellants assert that the Final Office Action fails to address the syngas
composition limitation. Appeal Br. 14, 16.
The Examiner finds that although the syngas composition "is not
disclosed by Donath, modified Donath does teach a similar temperature and
similar reactants to the claimed invention. As such, the system of Donath is
expected to produce the same gaseous composition as that of the instant
claims." Ans. 5. Similarly, the Examiner also finds that "the process of
8
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
modified Donath is expected to have similar compositions to the claimed
invention as they are similar processes with similar feedstocks and similar
reactor conditions." Ans. 6. Appellants present no persuasive argument
disputing these findings. Cf In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977)
("Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or
substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical
processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art
products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his
claimed product."). We thus agree with and adopt these findings of fact.
Moreover, the Examiner's factual findings regarding syngas
composition of modified Donath are supported by the record. Appellants'
apparatus is substantially the same as Donath's. Compare Spec Fig. 1 with
Donath Figure. The oxidant of Donath is either oxygen in the air or pure
oxygen. Final Act. 3; Donath 3:50-64. Appellants do not dispute this
factual finding. 3 Modified Donath utilizes a slurry with 35% to 55% water
as taught by Cole. Final Act. 4; Cole 2:19--29. Thus, modified Donath has
45% to 65% slurry feed. Appellants teach using oxygen or air and teach
using, for example, 38% water or 45% water. Spec. i-fi-172-75.
Appellants' Specification teaches that syn gas composition is
dependent upon slurry water percentage and whether the system uses air or
pure oxygen. Spec. i-f 19 ("The type and amount of oxidant and water
3 We also note that Rundstrom teaches that air could be the source of
molecular oxygen fed into the oxygen zone. Rundstrom 3 :46-49. To the
extent Donath does not teach air as an oxidant, it would have been obvious
to combine this teaching of Rundstrom with Donath because doing so would
be no more than predictable use of a prior art element according to its
established function.
9
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
introduced to the gasifier 100 can influence the composition and physical
properties of the syngas ... . ");see also id. at i-fi-172-75. Donath's oxidants
(air and oxygen) and slurry compositions overlap with the 62% slurry feed
(i.e., 38% water) and 55% slurry feed (i.e., 45% water) compositions for
which the Specification provides syngas composition data at Tables 2 and 3.
Spec. i-fi-172-75.
With respect to claim 5, a preponderance of the evidence supports that
modified Donath using oxygen and 55% water in the slurry feed will
produce a syngas comprising "about 16 mol% to about 20 mol% carbon
monoxide and at least 22 mol% carbon dioxide." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims
Appendix). Table 3 of the Specification establishes that, with oxygen and
45% water, the syngas has 18.6 mol% carbon monoxide and 20.8 mol%
carbon dioxide. Based on Table 3 's trend as more water is added to the
slurry, a preponderance of the evidence supports that the mol% carbon
dioxide would be higher and would be at least 22 mol% at 55% water.
With respect to claim 7, a preponderance of the evidence supports that
modified Donath using air and 55% water in the slurry will produce a syngas
comprising "about 2.5 mol% to about 9 mol% carbon monoxide and about 9
mol% to about 14 mol% carbon dioxide." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims
Appendix). Table 2 of the Specification establishes that, with air and 45%
water, the syngas has 10.3 mol% carbon monoxide and 11.5 mol% carbon
dioxide. Based on Table 2's trend as more water is added to the slurry, the
mol% carbon monoxide would be between about 2.5 mol% and about 9
mol% at 55% water.
With respect to claims 9 and 16, a preponderance of the evidence
supports that modified Donath using air and 45% water in the slurry will
10
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
produce a syngas comprising "less than 20 mol% carbon monoxide and at
least 8 mol% carbon dioxide" (as recited by each of these claims). Table 2
of the Specification establishes that, under these conditions, the syngas has
10.3 mol% carbon monoxide and 11.5 mol% carbon dioxide.
With respect to claims 10 and 1 7, a preponderance of the evidence
supports that modified Donath using oxygen and 45% water in the slurry
will produce a syngas comprising "less than 40 mol% carbon monoxide and
at least 16 mol% carbon dioxide" (as recited by each of these claims).
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims Appendix). Table 3 of the Specification establishes
that, under these conditions, the syngas has 18.6 mol% carbon monoxide and
20.8 mol% carbon dioxide.
With respect to claim 21, a preponderance of the evidence supports
that modified Donath using air and 45% water in the slurry will produce a
syngas comprising "about 12 mol% to about 14 mol% hydrogen, about 9
mol% to about 18 mol% carbon monoxide, and about 9 mol% to about 14
mol% carbon dioxide." Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix). Table 2 of the
Specification establishes that under these conditions, the syngas has 12.3
mol% hydrogen, 10.3 mol% carbon monoxide, and 11.5 mol% carbon
dioxide.
With respect to claim 22, a preponderance of the evidence supports
that modified Donath using oxygen and 38% water in the slurry will produce
a syngas comprising "about 22 mol% to about 28 mol% hydrogen, about 20
mol% to about 25 mol% carbon monoxide, and about 18 mol% to about 22
mol% carbon dioxide." Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix). Table 3 of the
Specification establishes that under these conditions, the syngas has 23.5
11
Appeal2015-002648
Application 12/325,360
mol% hydrogen, 23.2 mol% carbon monoxide, and 20.6 mol% carbon
dioxide.
Because the synthesis gas produced by Donath/Rundstrom/Cole is
produced under substantially identical conditions as those described in the
Specification as explained above, one can reasonably expect the syngas to
have the same characteristics as those described in the Specification. Ans.
5-7. Appellants' recognition of a specific composition which would flow
naturally from following the teachings of Donath/Rundstrom/Cole cannot be
the basis for patentability when the differences, if any, would otherwise have
been obvious. See Exparte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985).
Appellants thus fail to identify error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 5,
7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, and 22, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of those
claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 21-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12