Ex Parte Kern et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

12738049 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121738,049 04/14/2010
123223 7590 10/31/2016
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM)
222 Delaware A venue, Ste. 1410
Wilmington, DE 19801-1621
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andreas Kern
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.
074008-1012-US (286129) 8767
EXAMINER
BALASUBRAMANIAN, VENKATARAMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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):
IPDocketWM@dbr.com
penelope.mongelluzzo@dbr.com
DBRIPDocket@dbr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS KERN, HANS-ULRICH PROBSTLE,
TILO JOHN, WOLFGANG STEINER, and REIKO MAAS 1
Appeal2014-007842
Application 12/738,049
Technology Center 1600
Before MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, JOHN G. NEW, and JACQUELINE T.
HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a process
for preparing melamine. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
anticipated and obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are pending and on appeal (App.
Br. 2). We will focus on claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal,
which reads as follows:
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as BASF SE (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2014-007842
Application 12/738,049
1. A process for preparing melamine by converting urea in the
presence of a solid catalyst in one reactor or in a plurality of reactors
connected in series in the temperature range from 370°C to 430°C, cooling
the gas formed in the urea conversion in a gas cooler to a temperature from
320°C to 380°C and filtering the gas formed in the urea conversion in a hot
gas filter, removing the melamine by desublimation and recycling a portion
of the gas present after the melamine removal ("cycle gas") into the reactor
or the reactors, which comprises performing all of the above stages at a
pressure in the range from 4 bar abs. to 10 bar abs and wherein, after the
melamine removal, 5 to 50% of the cycle gas is branched off and fed into the
reactor as "fluidizing gas" without passing through a urea scrubber and at
least some of the remainder of cycle gas is fed to the urea scrubber.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Kaasenbrood (DE 2,060,929 published June 16,
1971, using US 3,697,519 issued Oct. 10, 1972, as an English-language
equivalent) (Ans. 2).2
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bruls et al. (US 4,348,520 issued Sept. 7, 1982)
("Bruls") (Ans. 3).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kaasenbrood (Ans. 4).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Bruls (Ans. 7).
KAASENBROOD
In the anticipation rejection, the Examiner finds that Kaasenbrood
"teaches a process for preparing melamine, which includes instant process"
(Ans. 2). In particular, the Examiner finds:
2 For point citations to Kaasenbrood, we will refer to the US equivalent.
2
Appeal2014-007842
Application 12/738,049
(Id.)
Ka[ a] senbrood teaches a process for preparing melamine from
urea in the presence of a catalyst at a temperature [ o ]f 390°C and
a pressure of 8 atmospheres. Before desublimation of the
melamine, the reaction gas is filtered, in the course of it is cooled
down in the conduit. The pressure during the desublimation was
maintained between 5 and 10 atmospheres. A portion of the
reaction gas present after the removal of the melamine is recycled
into the melamine reactor.
In the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds that Kaasenbrood
"does not specifically state a range of 5 to 50% as required by instant
claim 1" (id. at 4). However, the Examiner finds: "Ka[a]senbrood clearly
teaches that part of the non-condensed gases is sent to melamine reactor and
the remaining part to urea synthesis. More specifically ... Ka[a]senbrood
teaches 26 % of the gases condensed, 57% sent to melamine reactor and
remaining to urea reactor." (Id. at 4--5.) Thus, the Examiner concludes that
the range of 5 to 50% would have been obvious (id. at 5-7).
Analysis
Appellants argue: "Ka[a]senbrood does not disclose, either expressly
or inherently, feeding 5 to 50% of the cycle gas to the reactor.
Ka[a]senbrood further does not disclose, either expressly or inherently,
branching off and feeding such cycle gas to the reactor without passing
through a urea scrubber." (App. Br. 9.) We conclude that the Examiner has
not set forth a prima facie case that Kaasenbrood teaches or suggests that "5
to 50% of the cycle gas is branched off and fed into the reactor as 'fluidizing
gas' without passing through a urea scrubber," as recited in claim 1.
As acknowledged by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Kaasenbrood specifically
teaches that "57 percent [of the gas stream] is recycled to melamine
3
Appeal2014-007842
Application 12/738,049
synthesis reactor A" (Kaasenbrood, col. 6, 11. 28-36). However, even if we
conclude that Kaasenbrood teaches or suggests the claimed range, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner does not adequately explain how
Kaasenbrood teaches or suggest feeding the claimed amount into the reactor
without passing through a urea scrubber.
In particular, Appellants argue:
Ka[ a] senbrood discloses that all cycle gas is "introduced through
line 16 into condenser J, where the gases are contacted with a
urea melt supplied by mixing vessel K via line 20."
Ka[a]senbrood at col. 5, lines 4-7. In other words, in
Ka[ a] sen brood all cycle gas is fed to a condenser which acts as a
scrubber according to the language in the instant specification,
where it is brought into contact with a urea melt. Thus, there is
nothing in Ka[ a] sen brood to disclose or suggest feeding cycle
gas to the reactor without passing through a urea scrubber, as
required by the pending claims.
(App. Br. 10.) We conclude that the Examiner does not adequately explain
why Kaasenbrood's "condensor J, where the gases are contacted with a urea
melt," is not considered a urea scrubber (Kaasenbrood, col. 5, 11. 4--6).
Conclusion
The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Kaasenbrood
teaches or suggests that "5 to 50% of the cycle gas is branched off and fed
into the reactor as 'fluidizing gas' without passing through a urea scrubber,"
as recited in independent claim 1. We therefore reverse the anticipation and
obviousness rejections over Kaasenbrood.
BRULS
The Examiner finds that "Bruls teaches a process for preparation of
melamine comprising cooling the off gas with ammonia and or melamine"
4
Appeal2014-007842
Application 12/738,049
(Ans. 3). The Examiner also finds that Bruls teaches that "the major portion
of off-gas mixture of ammonia and carbon dioxide is recirculated to the
reaction zone as fluidized gas for the bed of catalytically active material"
(id.). In addition, the Examiner finds:
Bruls teaches the process wherein urea and thermal
decomposition products are converted to melamine in the
presence of a gas mixture containing ammonia and carbon
dioxide in a reaction zone containing fluidized bed of
catalytically active material at temperature and pressure which
include instant temperature and pressure and the melamine is ...
subsequently desublimated from the melamine containing gas
mixture in a desublimation zone by a dry-capture method within
the temperature and pressure range as in instant process and the
major portion of desublimator off-gas mixture containing
ammonia and carbon dioxide is compressed and recirculated to
the reaction zone as fluidizing gas for the bed of catalytically
active material without intervening treatment to remove gaseous
impurities from the desublimator off-gas as required by the
instant process.
(Id.) (See also id. at 7-8.)
Analysis
Appellants argue that "[t]here is nothing in Bruls to suggest the use of
a hot gas filter" (App. Br. 16). We conclude that the Examiner has not set
forth a prima facie case that Bruls teaches or suggests a method comprising
"filtering the gas formed in the urea conversion in a hot gas filter," as recited
in claim 1.
Conclusion
The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Bruls teaches or
suggests "filtering the gas formed in the urea conversion in a hot gas filter,"
5
Appeal2014-007842
Application 12/738,049
as recited in independent claim 1. We therefore reverse the anticipation and
obviousness rejections over Bruls.
REVERSED
6