Ex Parte KOSEOGLU et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

13904545 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/904,545 05/29/2013
38137 7590 03/29/2019
ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB
666 THIRD A VENUE, 10TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10017
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Omer Refa KOSEOGLU
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.
212,537-SA316US 7404
EXAMINER
MUELLER, DEREK N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OMER REF A KOSEOGLU, MASARU USHIO, and
KOJINAKANO
Appeal 2018-004311
Application 13/904,545
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to finally reject claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 16-22, which are all the
1 In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed May 29,
2013 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated July 7, 2017 ("Final Act.");
Appeal Brief filed November 20, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer
dated March 7, 2018 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed March 16, 2018
("Reply Brief').
2 Appellants are Applicants, Saudi Arabian Oil Company and JGC Catalysts
and Chemicals Ltd. (Bib Sheet 1 ), which, according to the Appeal Brief
(Appeal Br. 2), are also identified as the real parties in interest.
Appeal 2018-004311
Application 13/904,545
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Appellants' disclosure relates to an integrated process for treating
whole crude oil to remove asphalt and other impurities and comprises the
steps of separating asphalt from the whole crude oil, followed by treating the
deasphalted oil via hydrotreatment/hydrocracking with a catalyst, to remove
materials such as sulfur and nitrogen. Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief ( Appeal
Br. 11) (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded):
1. A method for reducing impurities in a whole crude oil
feedstock, comprising:
(i) solvent deasphalting said feedstock by contact with a
solid adsorbent to produce an asphalt fraction and a deasphalted
oil (DAO), in a first reaction chamber;
(ii) processing said DAO and asphalt fraction in separate,
second and third reaction chambers;
(iii) hydrocracking said DAO in the presence of a catalyst
which contains from 2-40 wt% active metal, a pore volume of
from 033-1.50 cc/gm, a surface area of 250-450 m2/g, and an
average pore diameter of at least 50 angstroms wherein the
active metal of said catalyst comprises Ni or [M]o on an
alumina, silica or zeolite support in said second reaction
chamber at a pressure of from 100-200 bars, a temperature of
from 350°C to 500°C, an LHSV of from 0.1 to 4.0 h-1, and a
hydrogen:DAO ratio of from 500 to 2,500 SLt/Lt, to desulfurize
and denitrogenize said DAO and to convert any hydrocarbons
contained in said DAO which have a boiling point over 370°C
into distillates;
2
Appeal 2018-004311
Application 13/904,545
(iv) gasifying said asphalt fraction via combining it with
oxygen and steam, in said third reaction chamber, to produce
hydrogen therefrom; and
(v) introducing said hydrogen produced in said third
reaction chamber into said second reaction chamber, said
method being carried out without distilling said whole crude oil
feedstock.
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Prada et al. US 5,384,297 Jan. 24, 1995
("Prada '297")
Koseoglu US 7,566,394 B2 July 28, 2009
("Koseoglu '394")
Iqbal US 2009/0294328 Al Dec. 3, 2009
("Iqbal '328")
The Re} ection
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejection:
claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 16-22 rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Iqbal '328 and Koseoglu '394
and Prada '297 (Ans. 4; Final Act. 4).
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellants in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection based on the fact-finding and reasoning set forth in the Answer and
Final Office Action, which we adopt as our own. We add the following.
3
Appeal 2018-004311
Application 13/904,545
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 16-22 as a group.
Appeal Br. 5. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10,
and 16-22 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Iqbal '328,
Koseoglu '394, and Prada '297 suggests a method satisfying all of the steps
of claim 1 and, thus, concludes the combination would have rendered the
claimed method obvious. Ans. 4--7 (citing Iqbal '328 ,r,r 19-26, 50, 52, 75,
105, Fig. 1; Koseoglu '394, Abstract, 5:40-6:21; Prada '297, 5:5-10, 6:60-
62, 6:62-64, 6:65---68, 16:38--42).
Regarding the "introducing said hydrogen produced in said third
reaction chamber into said second reaction chamber" step of claim 1, the
Examiner finds that, although Iqbal '328 does not explicitly teach use of the
hydrogen recycle from the gasifier in the hydrocracking process, the
reference does suggest the use of hydrogen separators downstream of the
gasifier. Ans. 5---6 (citing Iqbal '328 ,r 105). The Examiner finds further
that, because hydrogen costs money to produce, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated by this cost to use hydrogen available in
the process to fuel the needs of the hydroprocessing steps. Id. at 10.
Thus, the Examiner determines that a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have been motivated by process and
economic efficiency considerations to utilize/reuse available hydrogen from
Iqbal '328's gasifier for the hydrocracking step. Ans. 6, 10-11 (citing
Hallale3 83, Fig. 1 ).
3 Hallale et al., Hydrogen Optimisation at Minimal Investment, PTQ Spring
83-90 (2003) ("Hallale").
4
Appeal 2018-004311
Application 13/904,545
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because the Examiner has failed to establish that the cited art
suggests the "introducing said hydrogen produced in said third reaction
chamber into said second reaction chamber" step of the claim. Appeal Br. 5;
see also Reply Br. 2 ( arguing "there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited
art ... of recycling hydrogen back to a hydrocracking reactor").
In particular, Appellants contend that the Examiner's rejection is
based on nothing more than "common sense" and that it "is NOT common
sense to use the hydrogen produced by gasification of asphaltenes, as
appellants have, to hydrocrack DAO." Appeal Br. 6.
Appellants further contend that the Iqbal '328 reference actually
teaches "a completely different use of the hydrogen" (Appeal Br. 6) and the
Examiner's findings regarding the prior art's teachings are unsupported by
evidence and based on conclusory statements (id. at 7-8).
Appellants also contend that the Examiner's discussion of the Hallale
reference in the Answer is insufficient because, although Hallale discusses
the economics of hydrogen optimization, "nothing within Hallale points to
the specific methodology claimed." Reply Br. 3.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection. Rather, on the record before us, we determine
that a preponderance of the evidence and sound technical reasoning support
the Examiner's analysis and determination that the combination of Iqbal
'328, Koseoglu '394, and Prada '297, as evidenced by Hallale, suggests a
method satisfying all of the steps of claim 1, including the step of
"introducing said hydrogen produced in said third reaction chamber into said
second reaction chamber," and the Examiner's conclusion that the
5
Appeal 2018-004311
Application 13/904,545
combination would have rendered the claimed method obvious. Iqbal '328
,r,r 19-26, 50, 52, 75, 105, Fig. 1; Koseoglu '394, Abstract, 5:40-6:21; Prada
'297, 5:5-10, 6:60-62, 6:62---64, 6:65---68, 16:38--42; Hallale 83, Fig. 1.
Contrary to what Appellants argue (Appeal Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 1-3),
the Examiner provides a reasoned basis, which is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence in this appeal record, to evince why one of
ordinary skill would have been motivated to utilize/reuse available hydrogen
from Iqbal '328's gasifier process for the hydrocracking step in the manner
claimed. Ans. 5---6, 10-11 ( explaining that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated by process and economic efficiency
considerations, including hydrogen production costs, to reuse available
hydrogen in the process to fuel the needs of the hydroprocessing steps);
Hallale 83, Fig. 1; Iqbal '328 ,r 105. See alsoKSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) ( explaining that any need or problem known in the
art can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed).
Appellants fail to direct us to persuasive evidence or provide an
adequate technical explanation to establish why the Examiner's articulated
reasoning for combining the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention lacks a rational underpinning or is otherwise based on some other
reversible error.
We do not find persuasive Appellants' statements that Iqbal '328
teaches "a completely different use of the hydrogen" (Appeal Br. 6) and
"nothing within Hallale points to the specific methodology claimed" (Reply
Br. 3) because they are conclusory and, without more, insufficient to rebut or
otherwise establish reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. Attorney
argument is not evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir.
6
Appeal 2018-004311
Application 13/904,545
1984). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(explaining that mere lawyer's arguments or conclusory statements, which
are unsupported by concrete factual evidence, are entitled to little probative
value).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7,
9, 10, and 16-22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Iqbal '328, Koseoglu '394, and Prada '297.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 16-22 is
affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision 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
7