Ex Parte Albin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2015

12948167 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte LENNY LEE ALBIN
________________

Appeal 2013-004686
Application 12/948,167
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4–13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a process for introducing catalyst and/or
additives into a fluidized catalytic cracking unit. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process for introducing catalyst and/or additives into
a fluidized catalytic cracking unit, comprising:
generating a vacuum within a loading unit;
drawing one of the catalyst and/or additives from a
storage bin and into the loading unit in response to the
vacuum;
Appeal 2013-004686
Application 12/948,167

2
monitoring the weight of the catalyst and or additives
drawn into the loading unit and stopping generation of the
vacuum when the weight reaches a predetermined value;
pressurizing the loading unit; and
injecting the catalyst and/or additives into the fluidized
cataly1ic cracking unit in response to the pressurization of the
loading unit.

The References
Black US 3,372,958 Mar. 12, 1968
Andon US 4,018,671 Apr. 19, 1977
van Aalst US 4,701,080 Oct. 20, 1987
Bartholic (Bartholic ‘236) US 5,389,236 Feb. 14, 1995
Bartholic (Bartholic WO) WO 89/07487 A1 Aug. 24, 1989

The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1
and 4–13
1
over Andon in view of van Aalst (alone or as evidenced by
Bartholic WO) and Bartholic ’236 and claim 3 over Andon in view of van
Aalst (alone or as evidenced by Bartholic WO), Bartholic ’236 and Black.

OPINION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3–5, and 7–10 and reverse the
rejection of claims 6 and 11–13.

1
The Examiner’s statement of the rejection omits claim 13 (Ans. 2). That
omission is advertent as indicated by the Examiner’s discussion of that
claim. Id.
Appeal 2013-004686
Application 12/948,167

3
Claims 1, 3–5, and 7–10
The Appellant argues the claims as a group (App. Br. 16–22).
2
We
therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 3–5 and 7–
10 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2011).
Andon transfers catalyst batches on a predetermined frequency basis
from a storage hopper (10) into an addition hopper (18) by gravity and/or
gas pressure (col. 1, ll. 40–46; Fig.). “A sequencing control system valves-
off flow into the addition hopper, admits gas pressure to the hopper, then
opens the lower portion of the hopper permitting flow from the addition
hopper into a gas conveyor line which moves the catalyst into the
hydrocarbon conversion unit, preferably at the regeneration section” (col. 1,
ll. 46–53). The process “avoids the need for load-cells and other weighing
devices which require specialized maintenance procedures” (col. 1, ll. 33–
36).
Van Aalst transfers dry flowable material, such as a particulate or
pulverulent material, from a transfer vessel (12) at a remote source, such as
the hold of a ship or a railcar, to a different remote location, such as a
storage or production facility, by using vacuum or suction within the transfer
vessel to draw the dry flowable material into it until a predetermined level of
dry flowable material is reached and then introducing positive gas pressure
into the transfer vessel to convey the dry flowable material through the
transfer vessel’s outlet line (20) to the remote location (col. 3, ll. 33–54;
Fig. 1).

2
Although an additional reference is applied in the rejection of claim 3, the
Appellant does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of that claim (App. Br. 16–22).
Appeal 2013-004686
Application 12/948,167

4
Bartholic ’236 checks the accuracy of air-entrainment transfer of
catalyst
3
from a catalyst hopper to a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC)
4
unit by
injecting the catalyst into a weigh hopper (12) and weighing the catalyst
therein before transferring the catalyst to the FCC unit (col. 6, ll. 35–66;
col. 14, ll. 35–56; Fig. 1). Bartholic ’236 most preferably uses “a separate
catalyst addition system for each distinct catalyst species introduced into the
[FCC] unit” (col. 6, ll. 10–13) and states that “each catalyst species is most
preferably kept in its own separate weighing container” (col. 6, ll. 57–58).
The Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have substituted van Aalst’s vacuum transfer for Andon’s gravity or gas
pressure transfer because van Aalst’s indication that the system is useful for
transferring bulk materials such as cement, ash, soot, powdered minerals,
flour and coal dust (col. 1, ll. 6–15) would have indicated to such a person
that van Aalst’s disclosure of transfer to a production facility (col. 3, ll. 35–
39) is limited to transfer to a storage container in a production facility (App.
Br. 19; Reply Br. 2–3).
Van Aalst’s indication that vacuum is suitable for “transferring dry
free flowing bulk materials in the form of particulate or pulverulent
materials or the like” (col. 1, ll. 6–8; col. 3, ll. 40–49) generally would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity,
to use vacuum as an alternative to Andon’s gravity/gas pressure catalyst

3
“Catalyst” includes “any catalyst additive, bulk catalyst—and even
catalytically inert particles— so long as the material is capable of being
placed in a fluid state in an FCC unit” (col. 5, ll. 64–67).
4
“FCC unit” includes “the catalyst regenerators or other equipment
normally associated with such FCC units” (col. 6, ll. 3–6).
Appeal 2013-004686
Application 12/948,167

5
particle transfer. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account of
the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ”).
The Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined Bartholic ’236’s catalyst weighing system with Andon’s
system for transferring catalyst from a storage tank to an addition hopper
because Andon avoids weighing devices (col. 1, ll. 33–36) and
Bartholic ’236 weighs the catalyst that leaves, not enters, the weighing
container (col. 6, ll. 58–66; col. 14, ll. 52–56) (App. Br. 22).
Andon avoids weighing devices only because they require specialized
maintenance procedures (col. 1, ll. 33–36). Hence, Bartholic ’236’s
disclosure that the weighing system provides a check on the amount of
catalyst transferred (col. 6, ll. 13–22, 35–66) would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity who accepted using
specialized maintenance procedures, to use Bartholic ’236’s weighing
system as a check on the amount of catalyst added to Andon’s addition
hopper. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection
of claims 1, 3–5, and 7–10.
5

5
The Appellant’s other arguments (App. Br. 12–18) are not well taken
because they attack the references individually when the rejection is based
upon a combination of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757–58 (CCPA 1968).
Appeal 2013-004686
Application 12/948,167

6
Claims 6 and 11–13
The Appellant’s claims 6 and 11 require drawing at least two catalysts
and/or additives, each from a different storage bin, into the same loading
unit.
The Examiner argues that in view of Bartholic ’236’s disclosures of
using a petroleum cracking bulk catalyst in combination with an SOx-control
additive (col. 2, ll. 17–23) and using a separate catalyst system for each
catalyst species introduced into an FCC unit (col. 6, ll. 10–13), “it would
have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have
added more than one catalyst and/or additive from separate storage bins to
the FCC, in order to control SOx as well as cracking functions” (Ans. 4).
The Examiner has not established that the relied-upon disclosures in
Bartholic ’236 would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the
art, adding at least two catalysts, each from a different storage bin, to the
same weigh hopper.
Consequently, we reverse the rejection of claims 6 and 11 and
claim 11’s dependent claims 12 and 13.

DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1 and 4–13 over Andon in view of van Aalst
(alone or as evidenced by Bartholic WO) and Bartholic ’236 is affirmed as
to claims 1, 4, 5 and 7–10 and reversed as to claims 6 and 11–13. The
rejection of claim 3 over Andon in view of van Aalst (alone or as evidenced
by Bartholic WO), Bartholic ’236 and Black is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal 2013-004686
Application 12/948,167

7
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

dm