Ex Parte Conant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2018

13315058 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/315,058 12/08/2011 Travis Conant 30208-US-NP 2478
102091 7590 01/23/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - SABIC Americas
20 Church Street
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
FADHEL, ALI Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TRAVIS CONANT and SCOTT A. STEVENSON
Appeal 2017-006132
Application 13/315,058
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3—19, 21—23, and 26—29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 8, 2011; Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”) dated May 5, 2016; Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.”) dated October 28, 2016; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated January 3,
2017, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated March 3, 2017.
2 Appellants identify Saudi Basic Industries Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006132
Application 13/315,058
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to olefin metathesis. Spec. 11—3.
An example metathesis reaction involves transformation of 1-butene and 2-
butene to produce propylene and 2-pentene. Id. 13. Appellants state in the
Specification that propylene productivity is increased by operating the
metathesis reaction under mixed-phase conditions. Id. 140. Undesired
reaction products are separated from the effluent and recycled to the reactor
for continued processing. Id. 149. Claim 1—the sole independent claim on
appeal—reads:
1. A method for olefin metathesis comprising:
contacting an olefin feed stream with a metathesis
catalyst in a metathesis reactor to form an olefin reaction
mixture, wherein the contacting is at a reaction temperature and
at a reaction pressure of 40 psig to 90 psig to maintain the
olefin reaction mixture in a mixed-phase condition including
components in the liquid phase and components in the gas
phase to produce an olefin effluent stream;
recovering an olefin product from the olefin effluent
stream;
fractionating the olefin effluent stream to form a plurality
of fraction streams; and,
recycling at least a portion of at least one of the plurality
of fraction streams to the metathesis reactor;
wherein the step of recovering an olefin product from the
olefin effluent stream comprises recovering an olefin product
from at least a portion of at least one of the plurality of fraction
streams.
App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2017-006132
Application 13/315,058
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:3
I. Claims 1,3,5, 8—17, 21—23, and 26—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung4 and Leyshon.5
II. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Jung, Leyshon, and Myers.6
III. Claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jung, Leyshon, and Doherty.7
OPINION
Rejection I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellants argue the claims as a group and
present separate, additional arguments regarding each of claims 17 and 27—
29. App. Br. 4—9. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select
claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal based on the representative
claim. Separately argued claims 17 and 27—29 are separately addressed.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Jung discloses a process for metathesis of
butenes using a metathesis catalyst in a distillation reactor. Final Act. 8.
Jung states that butenes may be converted by metathesis to yield
3 Final Act. 7—23; Ans. 2—17.
4 US 4,709,115, issued November 24, 1987 (“Jung”).
5 US 2008/0146856 Al, published June 19, 2008 (“Leyshon”).
6 US 4,151,071, issued April 24, 1979 (“Myers”).
7 M.F. Doherty, et al., “Distillation,” Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s
Handbook, J. Wiley & Sons, D. W. Perry and R. H. Green, eds., 8th ed.,
2008.
3
Appeal 2017-006132
Application 13/315,058
propylene—a desired product. Jung 3:1—8, 13—16. The Examiner finds that
Jung’s reactive distillation process involves a mixed phase reaction mixture.
Final Act. 9. The Examiner also finds that Jung teaches a reactor pressure in
the range of 0—1,000 psig, and states a pressure of 80 psig in one of the
disclosed examples. Id. at 8. In light of these findings, the Examiner
determines that Jung teaches or suggests a process that includes all of the
steps recited in claim 1, except that Jung does not teach fractionation of the
effluent product stream and recycling a fractionated part back to the reactor.
Id. at 9. In that regard, the Examiner finds that Leyshon teaches that
propylene production in a metathesis reaction process may be increased by
fractionating the effluent and recycling ethylene by-product along with
unreacted butenes to the reactor. Id. at 10-11. Appellants do not dispute the
foregoing findings.
Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to provide a reason for
combining the teachings of Leyshon with Jung. App. Br. 5. Appellants also
argue that, because Leyshon uses a significantly higher reactor pressure,
“[o]ne skilled in the art simply would not combine Jung and Leyshon.” Id.
at 7. These arguments are not persuasive of error. As the Examiner
explains, “the motivation of fractionating the effluent from the contacting
step is to recover unreacted starting material (butene) and by-product
ethylene and to recycle these recovered streams . . . to make more of the
desired product propylene.” Ans. 18. Appellants fail to explain why
Leyshon’s selection of a different reactor pressure negates applying
Leyshon’s teaching of effluent fractionation and recycling to predictably
improve production in Jung’s process. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according
4
Appeal 2017-006132
Application 13/315,058
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”).
Appellants additionally argue that the claimed method does not
require reactive distillation to conduct olefin metathesis. App. Br. 8. In
response, the Examiner explains that Jung’s use of a distillation column
reactor for metathesis serves as an example of the claimed use of a
metathesis reactor in a mixed-phase condition. Ans. 21. Appellants do not
contest the Examiner’s reasoning in their Reply Brief. Nor do Appellants
point to any recitation in claim 1 that precludes reactive distillation. As
such, Appellants’ argument in this regard is unpersuasive.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain Rejection I as applied to claim
1. The Rejection as applied to each of claims 3, 5, 8—16, 21—23, and 26,
which Appellants’ do not separately argue, also is sustained.
Claims 17 and 27—29
Appellants additionally argue that the method recited in claims 17 and
27—29 involves an overall reaction of C4->C3, C6, whereas Jung’s overall
reaction is C4->C2, C3, C5, C6 and unreacted C4 and Leyshon’s overall
reaction is C2+C4->C2, C3, C5, and C6. App. Br. 9. However, as the
Examiner correctly observes (Ans. 22—23), Appellants’ argument is not
commensurate with what is recited in the claims. Claim 17 requires that the
starting olefin stream includes butenes (C4), which Jung admittedly satisfies.
Claim 27 requires that the olefin product comprises any one of ethylene
(C2), propylene (C3), pentene (C5), hexene (C6), unreacted butene, or a
combination thereof. Appellants acknowledge that Jung’s effluent contains
each of these components. App. Br. 9. Claim 28 depends from claim 27 and
requires that at least one of the listed components is fractionated and
5
Appeal 2017-006132
Application 13/315,058
recycled. That recitation is met by the undisputed teaching in Leyshon of
separating and recycling ethylene and unreacted butene. Claim 29 requires
that the olefin product is propylene, hexene, or a combination thereof, which
Jung admittedly satisfies.
Appellants fail to persuade us that any of claims 17 and 27—29
requires an overall reaction that is not met by Jung or the combined
teachings of Jung and Leyshon. Accordingly, Rejection I as applied to these
claims also is sustained.
Rejections II and III
Appellants seek reversal of Rejections II and III based solely on the
same arguments presented against Rejection I. App. Br. 10. Because we
find those arguments unpersuasive, Rejections II and III are sustained for the
above-stated reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejection claims 1, 3—19, 21—23, and 26—29
is affirmed.
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
6