Ex Parte Pawlak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2013

11446371 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/446,371 06/02/2006 Nathan A. Pawlak GAST 0107 PUS1 9888
22045 7590 03/29/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
EXAMINER
BOYER, RANDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1771
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2013 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 NATHAN A. PAWLAK and ROBERT W. CARR
____________

Appeal 2011-012977
Application 11/ 446,371
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system for producing methanol, comprising:
a reactor having first and second methane-containing gas
inputs, an oxygen-containing gas input, and an output for a
reactor product stream, the reactor being configured to facilitate
a homogeneous direct partial oxidation reaction of heated
methane-containing gas by oxygen from an oxygen-containing
gas to form the reactor product stream;
Appeal 2011-012977
Application 11/ 446,371

2
a first methane-containing gas supply coupled to the first
methane-containing gas input;

a second methane-containing gas supply coupled to the
second methane-containing gas

an oxygen-containing gas supply coupled to the oxygen-
containing gas input;

a pre-cooled absorbent comprising recycled reactor
process components; and

a scrubber configured to use the absorbent to;

cool the reactor product stream via direct contact with
pre-cooled absorbent through the scrubber;

remove and recycle unreacted methane gas from the
reactor product stream for use in at least one or both of the first
and second methane-containing gas inputs.

Appellants (App. Br. 4) request review of the following obviousness
rejection from the Examiner’s Final Office action:
Claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walker,
(US 2,007,116, issued July 2, 1935) and White, (US 3,064,029, issued Nov.
13, 1962).

Appeal 2011-012977
Application 11/ 446,371

3
OPINION1
After consideration of the Examiner’s rejection and Appellants’
response, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-29 for the
reasons presented by the Examiner. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue that a pre-cooled absorbent is not disclosed by
Walker because the absorbent of Walker is the result of cooling the reaction
gases after the oxidation has occurred. (App. Br. 4-5).
We agree with the Examiner that the claims do not preclude the use of
a “condensed liquid from the reaction” from being used as a “pre-cooled
absorbent”. We, like the Examiner, are unable to discern any difference
between the absorbent of Walker and that of the claimed system and method.
(Ans. 8). Walker discloses liquid condensate in tank [62] is cooled.
(Walker, pg. 2, right col., ll. 5-13).
Appellants argue that the method using an absorbent in White is not
compatible with Walker to recreate the present invention because White
removes inert gases and not unreacted methane (App. Br. 6-7).
We agree with the Examiner that the systems of Walker and White are
compatible because the methanol-water absorbent of both Walker and White
are being used for the same purpose - namely, to recover a crude aqueous
product comprising methanol and other hydrocarbon-oxygen compounds.
(Ans. 9-10). Moreover, White discloses that the absorbent or solvent should
have a high selectivity for methane. (Col. 3, ll. 20-31).

1 Appellants in the principal Brief did not provide substantive arguments
addressing each of the appealed claims. Appellants’ arguments address the
independent claims 1, 17 and 24 collectively. We select claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims.
Appeal 2011-012977
Application 11/ 446,371

4
Appellants further argue Walker only provides an enabling disclosure
for heterogeneous processes that uses a solid catalyst (App. Br. 6-7).
We agree with the Examiner that Walker is not limited to a
heterogeneous process. (Ans. 11; Walker, 4, right col., ll. 43-50).
For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner, the
rejection of claims 1-29 is affirmed.
ORDER
The rejection of claim 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

AFFIRMED

kmm