Ex Parte Qualls et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

11426026 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/426,026 06/23/2006
28841 7590
ConocoPhillips Company
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079-1175
06/22/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wesley Qualls
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.
34198US 1215
EXAMINER
PETTITT, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 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):
Legal-IP@conocophillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WESLEY QUALLS, WELDON L. RANSBARGER,
SHAW AS. HUANG, JAME YAO, DOUG ELLIOT, JONG JUH CHEN,
and RONG-JWYN LEE
Appeal2016-003636
Application 11/426,026 1
Technology Center 3700
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Wesley Qualls, et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 28-34, 39--46, 48, 49, 52---62,
83-102, 104, and 107-117. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 ConocoPhillips Company is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2016-003636
Application 11/426,026
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 39 and 49 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 39 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
39. A method of varying the heating value of LNG produced
from an LNG facility, said method comprising:
(a) cooling natural gas by indirect heat exchange to
thereby produce a first cooled stream;
(b) using a first distillation column to separate at least a
portion of the first cooled stream into a first relatively more
volatile fraction and a first relatively less volatile fraction;
( c) cooling at least a portion of said first relatively more
volatile fraction to thereby produce LNG; and
( d) adjusting at least one operating parameter of the first
distillation column to thereby vary the higher heating value
(HHV) of the produced LNG by at least about 1 percent over a
time period of less than about 72 hours,
wherein step (b) includes introducing a predominately
vapor stripping gas stream into a lower section of the first
distillation column, wherein the stripping gas originates as a
predominantly liquid side stream expelled from the first
distillation column and is routed to a heat exchanger, wherein the
liquid is heated to a first stripping gas temperature to form the
predominantly vapor stripping gas to be introduced into the
lower section of the first distillation column, wherein the first
stripping gas temperature provides a first HHV of the produced
LNG,
wherein said first cooled stream has a temperature in the
range of from about -125 to about -50°F when introduced into
the first distillation column, wherein said stripping gas stream
has a temperature in the range from about -50 to about 100°F
when introduced into the first distillation column, wherein step
( d) includes lowering the temperature of the stripping gas stream
from the first stripping gas temperature by at least 5°F in the heat
exchanger to a second stripping gas temperature to thereby lower
the HHV of the produced LNG, wherein the at least one
operating parameter comprises a stripping gas temperature.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 2-3.
2
Appeal2016-003636
Application 11/426,026
Rejections
Appellants seeks review of the following rejection: Claims 28-34,
39--46, 48, 49, 52-62, 83-102, 104, and 107-117 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Lee (US 6,401,486 Bl, iss. June 11, 2002), Battiste
(US 2005/0279131 Al, pub. Dec. 22, 2005), Mak (US 2007/0125122 Al,
pub. June 7, 2007), and Lupfer (US 3,288,706, iss. Nov. 29, 1966).
Additionally, the Examiner raised several rejections of claims 28-34,
39--46, 48, 49, 52-62, 83-102, 104, and 107-117 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor regards as the invention.
Final Act. 2-8 ( mailed Dec. 19, 2014 ). The rejections include multiple
claim limitations recited in the claims. Id. Appellants do not appeal the
Examiner's rejections under§ 112. See Appeal Br. 4 (addressing only the
rejection under§ I03(a)); Ans. 2 (stating: "[T]he appeal does not appeal the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph. Therefore all of the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 should be sustained."). We agree with the
Examiner that these rejections are not appealed, and we summarily sustain
the rejections under§ 112, second paragraph.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that the combination of Lee, Battiste, Mak, and
Lupfer would have rendered the subject matter of claims 28-34, 39--46, 48,
49, 52---62, 83-102, 104, and 107-117 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention. Final Act. 9-15. Independent claims 39
and 49 are directed to a "method of varying the heating value of [liquefied
3
Appeal2016-003636
Application 11/426,026
natural gas] LNG produced from an LNG facility, said method
comprising ... lowering the temperature of the stripping gas stream from the
first stripping gas temperature by at least 5°F in the heat exchanger to a
second stripping gas temperature to thereby lower the [higher heating value]
HHV of the produced LNG." Appeal Br., Claims App. 2-3 (claim 39), 4--5
(claim 49). The Examiner's findings most relevant to this appeal are:
(1) "Lee suggests that it is desirable to operate the system in different
modes in order to provide LNG products with different compositions and to
do so quickly to be able to adapt to changing market prices." Final Act. 11
(citing Lee, 4:50-60).
(2) "[ A ]djusting the properties of the cooled feed gas, stripping vapor,
and reflux streams to produce a desired product from separation is routine
and ordinary." Id.
(3) "Battiste more directly teaches adjusting properties of the cooled
feed gas (para. 34), stripping vapor (para. 77), and reflux streams (para. 78)
to control and change the composition of the LNG and the heating value of
the LNG (para. 79)." Id.
Id.
The Examiner determines:
Therefore, it is clear that the properties of these streams have well
known influences not only on the separation performance of the
system but the resulting compositions of the products and it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
time the invention was made, to lower the temperature of the
stripping gas and the temperature of the reflux by 5 F in their
respective heat exchangers for the purpose of producing a leaner
top gas and thereby a lower [sic] the HHV of the LNG product
for the purpose of providing LNG to those markets that demand
LNG with a lower HHV.
4
Appeal2016-003636
Application 11/426,026
Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding that Battiste teaches
adjusting the temperature of the stripping vapor. Appeal Br. 4. In particular,
Appellants contend that Battiste teaches adjusting the flow rate of the
stripping gas in paragraph 77, but "provides no indication of the temperature
of the stripping gas being varied as claimed." Id.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner reiterates the
findings noted above and additionally states:
Further, Battiste explains that the temperature of the
stripping gas allows the temperature of the heavies removal
column to be adjusted (para. 66 "This difference between the
temperature of the stripping gas and the feed gas allows the
temperature in heavies removal column to be adjusted").
Therefore while it is true Battiste teaches that the flow rate of
stripping gas may be adjusted, Battiste also expressly teaches that
the temperature of the stripping gas may be adjusted to adjust the
heating value of the LNG.
Ans. 17.
On this record, the Examiner has established by a preponderance of
the evidence that Battiste teaches varying the temperature of the stripping
gas. For example, Battiste explains:
As illustrated in FIG. 4, at least a portion of the stripping gas
undergoes cooling in heat exchanger 62 via indirect heat
exchange means 66 prior to entering inlet 65 of column 60 ....
The temperature of the stripping gas entering heavies removal
column 60 at stripping gas inlet 65 should be different than the
temperature of the fed stream entering heavies removal
column 60 at feed inlet 67. Preferably, the temperature of the
stripping gas entering heavies removal column 60 at stripping
gas inlet 65 is at least 5°F. warmer than the temperature of the
feed entering heavies removal column 60 at feed inlet 67, more
preferably at least 10°F. warmer, and most preferably at least
20°F. warmer. This difference between the temperature of the
stripping gas and the feed gas allows the temperature in heavies
5
Appeal2016-003636
Application 11/426,026
column 60 to be adjusted by adjusting the flow rate of the
stripping gas to heavies removal column 60.
Battiste, ,r 66. Appellants do not raise any other argument in response to this
rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting each of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6