Ex Parte Chantant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2016

12808769 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/808,769 09/02/2010 Francois Chantant
23632 7590 06/07/2016
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
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.
TS8728 US 5408
EXAMINER
KING, BRIAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2016 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANCOIS CHANTANT, WIVEKA JACOBA ELION, and
CASPER KRIJNO GROOTHUIS
Appeal 2014-005098 1,2
Application 12/808,769
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed June 17,
2010) and Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Sept. 16, 2013), as well as the
Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Jan. 14, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, "[ t ]he real party in interest is Shell Oil
Company." Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005098
Application 12/808,769
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "a method for
cooling a gaseous nitrogen-based stream, particularly against one or more
liquefied hydrocarbon streams." Spec. 1, 11. 1-3. Independent claims 1, 13,
and 17 are the only independent claims under appeal. We reproduce
independent claims 1 and 13, below, as representative of the appealed
claims.
1. A method of producing a gasified hydrocarbon
stream, at least comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a first liquefied hydrocarbon stream from a
first source;
(b) providing a second liquefied hydrocarbon stream from
a second source, which second source is at a geographically
separate location from the first source and which second
liquefied hydrocarbon stream has been liquefied by cooling a
gaseous source hydrocarbon stream solely against a first cooled
nitrogen-based stream;
( c) gasifying the first and second liquefied hydrocarbon
streams to produce a gasified hydrocarbon stream, wherein
cooling a gaseous nitrogen-based stream against the gasifying
first and second liquefied hydrocarbon streams to provide a
second cooled nitrogen-based stream wherein the mass of the
second cooled nitrogen-based stream produced using cooling
duty released from the first and second liquefied hydrocarbon
streams is at least as high as the mass of the first cooled nitrogen-
based stream used in step (b ), whereby no additional cooling duty
is used to cool the gaseous nitrogen-based stream and the gaseous
source hydrocarbon stream.
13. A method of liquefying a gaseous hydrocarbon
stream, at least comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a second cooled nitrogen-based stream;
(b) liquefying a hydrocarbon stream solely by cooling
against the second cooled nitrogen-based stream to provide a
liquefied hydrocarbon stream; wherein the second nitrogen-
based stream has been obtained from a gaseous nitrogen-based
2
Appeal2014-005098
Application 12/808,769
stream that has been cooled against a first liquefied hydrocarbon
stream provided from a first source and against a second
liquefied hydrocarbon stream provided from a second source,
during which cooling the first and second liquefied hydrocarbon
streams have been gasified, and whereby no additional cooling
is used to cool the gaseous nitrogen-based stream, which second
source is at a geographically separate location from the first
source and which second liquefied hydrocarbon stream has been
liquefied by cooling solely against a first cooled nitrogen-based
stream, wherein the mass of the first cooled nitrogen-based
stream used in step (b) is at most equal to the mass of the second
cooled nitrogen-based stream, and no additional cooling is used
to liquefy the first cooled nitrogen-based stream.
Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Primm (US 6,546,739 B2, iss. Apr. 15, 2003)
and Bratchell (GB 2 172 388 A, pub. Sept. 17, 1986).
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Primm, Bratchell, Williams (US 3,400,547, iss. Sept. 10,
1968), and Agrawal (US 5,141,543, iss. Aug. 25, 1992).
The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Primm, Bratchell, and Appellants' Admitted Prior Art.
The Examiner rejects claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bratchell and Primm.
The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bratchell, Primm, Williams, and Agrawal.
See Answer 2-14.
3
Appeal2014-005098
Application 12/808,769
ANALYSIS
Obviousness rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9-12
Independent claim 1 recites "cooling a gaseous nitrogen-based stream
against the gasifying first and second liquefied hydrocarbon streams to
provide a second cooled nitrogen-based stream ... , whereby no additional
cooling duty is used to cool the gaseous nitrogen-based stream." Br., Claims
App. The Examiner finds that Primm fails to disclose this claim limitation,
but that Bratchell discloses the limitation. See Answer 2--4. 3 Appellants
argue the rejection is in error because Bratchell also fails to teach that "no
additional cooling duty" is used to cool a gaseous nitrogen-based stream.
See Br. 5---6. Based on our review of the record, including Bratchell, we
determine that the Examiner's finding regarding Bratchell' s teachings are
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Initially, we note that Appellants do not direct our attention to any
definition for the phrase "no additional cooling duty." Further, the Examiner
does not propose a definition for the phrase "no additional cooling duty."
Nonetheless, based on the use of the term by Appellants (see, e.g., Br. 5---6)
and the Examiner (see, e.g., Answer 3--4, 15), we understand that the claim
limitation "no additional cooling duty," in the context of the cooling of the
gaseous nitrogen-based stream, excludes the use of anything other than
gasifying liquid-hydrocarbon to cool the gaseous nitrogen-based stream.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that
"Bratchell ... teaches cooling (in 12) a gaseous nitrogen-based stream (dry
3 But, see the rejection of independent claims 13 and 17 which follows,
where the Examiner finds that Bratchell does not teach that no additional
cooling duty is used to cool the gaseous nitrogen-based stream. See
Answer 8, 10.
4
Appeal2014-005098
Application 12/808,769
air 11) against a gasifying liquefied hydrocarbon stream to provide a second
cooled nitrogen-based stream (13)." Answer 3. As an initial matter, we
point out that a preponderance of the evidence would not support the
Examiner's finding that Bratchell teaches "no additional cooling duty" if
Bratchell's only discussion and illustration of plant 12 is that the plant does
use a liquefied hydrocarbon stream to cool a nitrogen-based stream without
further discussion of plant 12-instead Bratchell must teach (either
expressly or inherently) that plant 12 only uses a liquefied hydrocarbon
stream and excludes the use of anything else to cool the nitrogen-based
stream. However, the Examiner does not provide any citation to Bratchell
that teaches that plant 12 uses only a liquefied hydrocarbon stream and
excludes the use of anything else to cool the nitrogen-based stream. Further,
a reasonable reading ofBratchell indicates that plant 12 uses either 1) a
conventional refrigerant with the liquefied hydrocarbon stream or 2) the
conventional refrigerant only. See Bratchell p. 2, 11. 74--76; see also Appeal
Br. 5-7.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9-12 that depend from claim 1.
Obviousness rejections of claims 4 and 8
Inasmuch as we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1,
we also do not sustain the rejection of its dependent claims 4 and 8.
Obviousness rejection of claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19
Independent claim 13 recites
the second nitrogen-based stream has been obtained from a
gaseous nitrogen-based stream that has been cooled against a
first liquefied hydrocarbon stream provided from a first source
5
Appeal2014-005098
Application 12/808,769
and against a second liquefied hydrocarbon stream provided
from a second source, during which cooling the first and second
liquefied hydrocarbon streams have been gasified, and whereby
no additional cooling is used to cool the gaseous nitrogen-based
stream.
Br., Claims App. For the reasons discussed above, we determine that
Bratchell fails to teach that "no additional cooling is used to cool the gaseous
nitrogen-based stream." Regardless, the Examiner appears to find that
Bratchell fails to disclose that "no additional cooling is used," and relies on
Primm to teach cooling a gaseous nitrogen based stream without additional
cooling. See Answer 8-9. However, the Examiner does not provide any
citation to Primm that teaches using only a liquefied hydrocarbon stream and
excludes the use of anything else to cool a nitrogen-based stream.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 13. Further, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 14
and 16 that depend from claim 13. Further, we do not sustain the rejection
.. • 1 1 ' 1 • 1,.., 1 • 1 • ' 1 • • ' '. • •1 ' '1 1 • 1 or maepenaem crn1m l 1, wmcn recrces nmnauons s1m11ar w 1nose mscussea
above with respect to claim 13, and the rejection of dependent claim 19.
Obviousness rejection of claim 18
Inasmuch as we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 17,
we also do not sustain the rejection of its dependent claim 18.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1--4,
6-14, and 16-19.
REVERSED
6