Ex Parte HOEK et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12638625 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/638,625 12/15/2009 Arend HOEK
23632 7590 06/02/2016
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.
TS2286 (US) 5395
EXAMINER
KEYS,ROSALYNDANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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 AREND HOEK and THOMAS JORIS REMANS 1
Appeal2013-007698
Application 12/638,625
Technology Center 1600
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JOHN G. NEW, and
JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants state the real party-in-interest is Shell Oil Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-007698
Application 12/638,625
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Wright et al. (US 6,869,978 B2, March 22, 2005)
("Wright") alone or in combination with Te Raa et al. (US 200710122322
Al, May 31, 2007) ("Te Raa") and Tonkovich et al. (US 2010/0081726 Al,
April 1, 2010) ("Tonkovich").
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Appellants argue all of the claims together. App. Br. 3--4. Claim 1 is
representative and recites:
1. A process for carrying out a high-speed stop in a Fischer-
Tropsch process which comprises providing a feed comprising
CO and H2 to the inlet section of a fixed bed reactor comprising
a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst, the reactor being at reaction
temperature and pressure, and withdrawing an effluent from the
outlet section of the reactor, wherein the high-speed stop is
effected by blocking provision of CO and H2 to the reactor, and
withdrawing gaseous reactor content from the reactor, the
gaseous reactor content being withdrawn at least in part from the
inlet section of the reactor.
App. Br. 6.
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
We agree with, and adopt, the Examiner's findings and conclusion
that the appealed claims are prima facie obvious over the cited prior art
2
Appeal2013-007698
Application 12/638,625
references. We address the arguments raised by Appellants on appeal
below.
Issue
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combined cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 3--4.
Analysis
Because the Examiner states Te Raa and Tonkovich were not cited as
teaching a high-speed stop in a Fischer-Tropsch process, and because
Appellants make no argument to the contrary, we address only Appellants'
arguments with respect to Wright. See Ans. 9.
Appellants argue Wright is directed to a process for regenerating a
catalyst used in a process for synthesizing hydrocarbons, such as a Fischer-
Tropsch process. App. Br. 4. According to Appellants, the regeneration
process involves contacting a deactivated Fischer-Tropsch catalyst with a
regeneration gas under regeneration-promoting conditions. Id. Appellants
therefore contend the reference neither teaches nor suggests a process for
carrying out a high-speed stop in a Fischer-Tropsch process. Id. Rather,
Appellants argue, the regeneration process is conducted after the catalyst has
become deactivated and not during a high-speed stop, which may be
required under certain unfavorable conditions. Id. According to Appellants,
there is a difference between a high-speed stop and a normal stop that is
performed during routine operation. Id.
Further, argue Appellants, Wright does not disclose performing such a
high-speed stop by blocking the provision of hydrogen gas and carbon
3
Appeal2013-007698
Application 12/638,625
monoxide and withdrawing gaseous reactor content from the reactor, the
gaseous reactor content being withdrawn at least in part from the inlet
section of the reactor. Id.
The Examiner responds that, although Wright does not explicitly
disclose a high-speed stop, Wright cuts off the flow of synthesis gas by
successively closing valve 220 and opening valve 250 during the
regeneration of the deactivated catalyst. Ans. 7 (citing, e.g., Wright col. 10,
lines 41---65).
The Examiner finds Appellants' Specification discloses that the high-
speed stop is effected by blocking provision of CO and H2 to the reactor,
and withdrawing gaseous reactant content from the reactor, the gaseous
reactor content being withdrawn at least in part from the inlet section of the
reactor. App. Br. 7 (citing Spec. 3). The Examiner finds the Specification
also discloses that, during the high-speed stop, gaseous reactor content is
withdrawn from the reactor. Id. (citing Spec. 4). The Examiner finds this
reactor content encompasses gaseous reactants, gaseous products, and any
inert gases added to the reactor during the reaction or during the high-speed
stop. Id.
The Examiner finds that, in cycling between the Fischer-Tropsch
reaction and catalyst regeneration, Wright teaches simultaneously closing
valve 220 and opening valve 250. Id. (citing, e.g., Wright cols. 10-11, 11.
41-7). The Examiner finds Wright teaches that when valve 220 is closed,
the provision of synthesis gas is stopped, i.e., blocked and, further, the
simultaneous opening of valve 250 allows regeneration gas to enter the
reactor. Id. As a result, the Examiner finds, one of ordinary skill in the art
would expect that the reaction would necessarily stop. Id.
4
Appeal2013-007698
Application 12/638,625
Finally, the Examiner also finds the gaseous reactor contents (which
may include unreacted synthesis gas, reaction products that are typically
gaseous under Fischer-Tropsch reaction conditions, and volatized
hydrocarbons) are withdrawn from the reactor via stream 240. Id.
We agree with the Examiner's reasoning and adopt it as our own.
Wright teaches: "When the activity of the catalyst falls to a pre-determined
level, valve 220 is closed separating feed stream [i.e., CO and H2] 200 from
reactor 230. Simultaneously, valve 250 is opened letting a regeneration gas
stream 260 into reactor 230." Wright col. 10, 11. 53-57. Thus we agree with
the Examiner that Wright explicitly teaches that the supply of the reaction
gas H2 (and, of course, CO as well) is blocked as valve 220 is closed.
Finally, Wright teaches: "A product stream 240 from the reactor may
include water, a byproduct of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, un-reacted
synthesis gas components, that is carbon monoxide and hydrogen and
hydrocarbon products produced under Fischer-Tropsch reaction conditions."
Wright col. 10, 11. 46-51. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Wright
thus teaches "withdrawing gaseous reactor content from the reactor" as
required by claim 1. We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of the
claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth supra, we agree with the Examiner's
reasoning that claims 1-20 are prima facie obvious. We consequently
affirm the rejection of the claims.
5
Appeal2013-007698
Application 12/638,625
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6