Ex Parte Bhandarkar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

13682336 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/682,336 11120/2012
29052 7590 08/23/2016
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
999 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E.
Suite 2300
ATLANTA, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Maruti Bhandarkar
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.
211522 1003
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HUY TRAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1774
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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):
patent. docket@sutherland.com
pair_sutherland@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARUTI BHANDARKAR, ELIZABETH AN BENHAM,
REBECCA A. GONZALES, SCOTT E. KUFELD, JOEL A. MUTCHLER,
CATHERINE M. GILL, THANH T. NGUYEN, and TIMOTHY 0. ODI
Appeal2015-003527
Application 13/682,336
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1and3 through 37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is generally directed to a polyolefin production
system comprising at least one loop reactor configured to produce a reactor
discharge comprising a polyolefin, and a post-reactor treatment zone
configured to receive the reactor discharge. App. Br. 3--4.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
Appeal2015-003527
Application 13/682,336
1. A polyolefin production system comprising:
a first loop reactor configured to produce a first reactor
discharge comprising a first polyolefin;
a second loop reactor configured to produce a second
reactor discharge comprising a second polyolefin; and
a post-reactor treatment zone configured to receive the
first reactor discharge and the second reactor discharge,
wherein the first and second reactors are configured to
allow the first reactor discharge to be (a) transferred to the
second reactor and, alternatively, (b) diverted to by-pass the
second reactor and fed into the post-reactor treatment zone
wherein the first and second polyolefins are first contacted in
the postreactor treatment zone.
App. Br. 9, Claims Appendix.
Appellants (see App. Br., generally) request review of the Examiner's
fmal rejection1 of claims 1 and 3-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harrington et al. (US 2006/0183861 Al, published August
17, 2006) in view ofFouarge (US 2011/0124828 Al, published May 26,
2011).
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1 and 3-37. We add the following for emphasis.2
Harrington discloses a system for producing low crystallinity and high
crystallinity polymers comprising propylene-derived units. Harrington i-f 5.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Harrington's system
1 Final Office Action entered July 15, 2014.
2 Appellants argue claims 1 and 3-37 together. See Appeal Brief, generally.
Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative, and claims 3-37 will stand or
fall with claim 1.
2
Appeal2015-003527
Application 13/682,336
• .. .. £""" , .. , • .. , A 1. ,.. , .. £'roll , , -1 A
mcmaes a nrst so muon pnase reactor w mat proauces an ernuem stream l u
containing a first polymer, a second solution phase reactor 6 that produces
an effluent stream 12 containing a second polymer, a phase separator 8 that
receives the effluent streams 10 and/or 12 from one or both reactors 4 and 6,
and a devolatizer 14 that removes volatile components from the output 16 of
the phase separator 8. Compare Final Act. 4 with App. Br. 4---6. Appellants
also do not dispute the Examiner's finding that first reactor 4 and second
reactor 6 are configured to allow the first reactor discharge 10 to be
transferred to the second reactor 6, or to allow the first reactor discharge 10
to bypass 42 the second reactor 6 and directly enter the phase separator 8
and devolatizer 14 (post-reactor treatment zone). Compare Final Act. 4 with
App. Br. 4---6. The Examiner recognizes that Harrington does not disclose
that the first and second reactors are loop reactors (Final Act. 4), and to
address this difference in Harrington, relies on F ouarge' s disclosure of loop
reactors suitable for olefin polymerization that have improved product
removal means, which Appellants do not dispute. Compare Final Act. 5
with App. Br. 4---6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use
loop reactors in Harrington's system for producing propylene-containing
polymers to provide improvements in product removal. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argues that Harrington describes solution polymerization
to produce low crystallinity and high crystallinity polymers, and discloses
that combining solutions of the low and high crystallinity polymers results in
intimate blending of the polymers, which increases their rate of
3 Reference numerals provided in the discussion of Harrington refer to
Figure 1 of Harrington.
3
Appeal2015-003527
Application 13/682,336
crystallization, and leads to the production of pellets from the polymers that
have sufficient hardness to enable them to flow freely even after storage for
long periods of time. App. Br. 4--5. Appellants argue that Fourage discloses
using slurry polymerization to produce solid particles suspended in a diluent.
App. Br. 5. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have replaced the solution phase reactors of Harrington with the slurry loop
reactors of Fourage because Harrington repeatedly indicates that intimate
mixing of the polymers, which results in improved pellet hardness, is due to
blending of solutions of the polymers. Id. Appellants further argue that
neither Harrington nor Fourage suggest that Harrington's solution process
could be carried out as a slurry process, and, therefore, replacing the solution
phase reactors of Harrington with the slurry loop reactors of Fourage would
destroy Harrington's intended function. App. Br. 5---6.
However, contrary to Appellants' arguments, Harrington does not
disclose that use of a solution phase reactor is a required aspect of
Harrington's system for producing blends of low crystallinity and high
crystallinity polymers. Instead, Harrington discloses that "[b ]oth the low
crystallinity polymer and the high crystallinity polymer may be produced in
solution polymerization reactors." Harrington i-f 27. Harrington further
discloses that "[i]n certain embodiments of the processes and blends
described herein, solutions of the low crystallinity polymer and the high
crystallinity polymer are blended ... "Harrington ,-r 26. Thus, Harrington
does not limit the reactors that can be used to produce polymers comprising
propylene-derived units solely to solution-phase reactors. In addition,
Fourage discloses that use of loop reactors for olefin polymerizations was
conventional in the art at the time of the invention. Fourage ,-r 2. Therefore,
4
Appeal2015-003527
Application 13/682,336
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention reasonably would
have recognized the suitability of both solution phase reactors and loop
reactors for forming polyolefins.
Appellant's arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have replaced the solution phase reactors of Harrington with the slurry loop
reactors of F ourage because doing so would destroy the intended function of
Harrington are not supported by the applied prior art references or any other
evidence of record. App. Br. 4---6. Appellants do not direct us to any
evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art could not have
successfully used a loop reactor in Harrington's process, and Appellants'
mere arguments to that effect cannot take the place of evidence. Id. In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d
1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974). Furthermore, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881(CCPA1981); see also In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane). A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized, from the teachings of the cited prior
art, the suitability of utilizing loop reactors in conjunction with a post-
reactor treatment zone as required by the claimed invention.
Therefore, Appellants do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner's determination that the combined disclosures of Harrington and
Fourage would have rendered the subject matter of claim 1 obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Jung, 637 F.3d
5
Appeal2015-003527
Application 13/682,336
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the examiner had failed
to make a prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in framing the
issue as one of reversible error because it has long been the Board's practice
to require an appellant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's
rejections); In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010), quoting
Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) ("the burden of showing that
the error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency's
determination.").
We further note that Fourage discloses a system for producing olefin
polymers that includes one or more loop reactors that can be used in parallel
or in series, and discloses that polymer slurry is discharged from each loop
reactor into a product recovery zone that includes filters and associated
vapor recovery and solids recovery systems. F ourage i-fi-1 68, 71.
For these reasons and the reasons stated in the Final Action and the
Answer, the combination ofFourage and Harrington would have provided a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention with sufficient
knowledge to arrive at, and thereby to establish the obviousness of, the
subject matter recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 24.
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Harrington and Fourage.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above and in the Final Action and the
Answer, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
6
Appeal2015-003527
Application 13/682,336
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
7