Ex Parte Ransbarger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2016

12117364 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/117,364 05/08/2008 Weldon L. Ransbarger
46849 7590 10/28/2016
ConocoPhillips Company
Legal Department ? Intellectual Property Docketing
600 North Dairy Ashford (77079-1175)
P.O. Box 4783
Houston, TX 77210-4783
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.
34285US 8902
EXAMINER
MENGESHA,WEBESHET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2016 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):
Legal-IP@ConocoPhillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WELDON L. RANSBARGER
and J. DALE ORTEGO JR.
Appeal2014-009500
Application 12/117,364
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Weldon L. Ransbarger and J. Dale Ortego ("Appellants") appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3,
5-12, 15, and 17. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is ConocoPhillips Company.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009500
Application 12/117,364
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A process for liquefying a natural gas stream in an LNG
facility, the process comprising:
(a) cooling at least a portion of the natural gas stream in a
plurality of upstream mechanical refrigeration cycles to form a
predominantly natural gas stream wherein each upstream
mechanical refrigeration cycle comprises a heat exchanger for
providing indirect heat exchange with a pure component
refrigerant for cooling the natural gas stream;
(b) introducing the predominantly natural gas stream to a
heavies removal unit to remove a portion of the heavies from the
predominantly methane stream to form a predominantly methane
stream;
( c) after step (b) and downstream of the heavies removal
unit, introducing the predominantly methane stream to an open-
loop methane refrigeration cycle wherein the open-loop methane
refrigeration cycle comprises an open-loop methane refrigeration
cycle heat exchanger, a refrigeration compressor, and a
refrigerant chiller downstream of the refrigeration compressor;
( d) after step ( c) and downstream of the heavies removal
unit, cooling the predominantly methane stream in the open-loop
methane refrigeration heat exchanger;
( e) after step ( d) and downstream of the open-loop
methane refrigeration cycle heat exchanger, separating at least a
portion of the predominantly methane stream in a multistage
separation vessel, wherein the multistage separation vessel
comprises a plurality of mass transfer surfaces and a reboiler, to
provide a predominantly vapor stream and a predominantly
liquid stream, wherein at least a portion of the predominantly
vapor stream is routed to a nitrogen removal unit; and
(f) using the predominantly vapor stream as a refrigerant
in the open-loop methane refrigeration cycle by introducing the
predominantly vapor stream to a warming pass of the open-loop
methane refrigeration cycle heat exchanger for cooling the
predominantly methane stream in step ( d);
2
Appeal2014-009500
Application 12/117,364
(g) after step (t) and downstream of the warming pass of
the open-loop methane refrigeration cycle heat exchanger,
compressing the refrigerant in the refrigeration
compressor;
(h) cooling the refrigerant in the refrigeration chiller;
(i) after step (h), introducing the refrigerant to a cooling
pass of at least one of the plurality of heat exchangers of the
upstream mechanical refrigeration cycles to form a
reboiler duty stream;
U) introducing the reboiler duty stream to a warming pass
of the reboiler to provide a reboiler duty for the multistage
separation vessel to form a cold reflux stream;
(k) introducing the cold reflux stream to the multistage
separation vessel to provide reflux to the multistage separation
vessel; and
(1) withdrawing at least a portion of the predominantly
liquid product stream as a liquefied natural gas product.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 2
1) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph for
indefiniteness.
2) Claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Low (US 6,070,429, iss. June 6, 2000),
Patel'521(US2006/0130521 Al, pub. June 22, 2006), and Patel
'744 (US 7,069,744 B2, iss. July 4, 2006).
3) Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Low, Patel'744, Patel'521, and Hahn (US 2005/0183452 Al,
pub. Aug. 25, 2005).
2 Claims 28, 30-34, and 36-38 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Final Act. 10, 14. We do not address these rejections because claims 18-38
were cancelled in an amendment after final entered by the Examiner. Adv.
Act. 2.
3
Appeal2014-009500
Application 12/117,364
4) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Low, Patel '744, Patel '521, and Ransbarger (US 2007 /0056318
Al, pub. Mar. 15, 2007).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Final Act. 2. The Examiner concludes that there is
insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations "the predominantly methane
stream" and "the heavies removal unit" in lines 12-13 of claim 1. Id. The
Examiner also rejects claim 1 for omitting essential elements of "how to get
from a natural gas stream to the predominantly methane stream."
Appellants filed an amendment after final rejection to traverse this rejection.
Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner entered the amendment. Id. The Examiner did
not withdraw the rejection in the Answer. See Ans. 2 (maintaining every
ground of rejection set forth in the Final Action and not "listed under a
subheading 'WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS"').
The entered amendments to claim 1 cure this rejection. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. 3
3 We note that claim 1 as amended contains a manifest informality that is
deserving of correction. Subparagraph (b) of claim 1 recites, inter alia,
"remove a portion of the heavies from the predominantly methane stream to
form a predominantly methane stream." It appears that the italicized
language should recite "the predominantly natural gas stream."
4
Appeal2014-009500
Application 12/117,364
Rejection 2
The Examiner finds that Low discloses the subject matter of claim 1,
including a multistage separation vessel (80), but does not disclose the
multistage separation vessel comprising "a plurality of mass transfer
surfaces" and "a reboiler." Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner finds that Patel
'7 44 discloses an absorber containing "at least one mass transfer zone
wherein the mass transfer zone can be a flash zone, an equilibrium stage,
packing section, tray, or the like." Id. at 5. The Examiner reasons it would
have been obvious "for the separation vessel of Low to comprise a plurality
of mass transfer surfaces as taught by Patel ['744] in order to separate a
desired component from other components, or to enrich a fluid stream in one
or more components by removal of one of more other components." Id.
The Examiner also finds that Patel '744 discloses a reboiler (58) and
determines it would have been obvious to "modify the separation vessel of
Low by implementing a reboiler as taught by Patel ['744] in order to boil the
liquid from the bottom of the separation vessel to generate vapors which are
returned to the vessel to drive the vessel separation." Id. The Examiner then
finds that Patel '521 discloses "a tower overhead stream 14 compressed in a
gas compressor (27) and cooled in a side re boiler (31) to provide a portion of
the reboiling energy for the fractionation tower (10) and further form a
cooled lean tower reflux stream (26), which is fed to the fractionation
tower." Id. at 6. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious to "modify the refrigerant stream (the reboiler duty stream)(158) of
Low [to] provide a reboiler duty and further used as a reflux stream for the
separation vessel as taught by Patel 521 in order to provide a reboiling
5
Appeal2014-009500
Application 12/117,364
energy and a cooled lean reflux tower stream to the separation vessel to
enhance the separation process." Id.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because Low does not
disclose "a multi-stage separation vessel" and the combination of the cited
references does not teach the "integration of a multistage separation vessel
into an LNG process in the specific manner recited by ... steps (i)-(k) of
Appellant's claim 1." Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner responds that Low
explicitly discloses "the separation vessel is a multistage separation vessel
and comprises a plurality of mass transfer surfaces. However, using a
multistage separation vessel with a plurality of mass transfer surfaces to
separate a stream into a vapor and liquid is well known in the art as taught
by" Patel '744. Ans. 3, see also Final Act 4 (Low disclose "a multistage
separation vessel (80)"). For the following reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection.
The Specification discloses multistage separation vessel 404. Spec.
i-f 43, Fig. 2. The Specification also discloses intermediate-stage methane
flash drum 84 and low-stage methane flash drum 86. Id. Figure 2, a
schematic diagram of an embodiment of Appellants' claimed invention,
represents multistage separation vessel 404 with a different symbol than
flash drums 84 and 86.
Low describes vessel 80 as a "high-stage flash drum." Low, col. 20,
1. 35. We note that vessel 80 in Low is represented schematically in Low's
Figure 1 by a symbol that is similar to the symbol used in Appellants' Figure
2 to represent flash drums 84 and 86. Compare Low, Fig. 1, Appellants'
Fig. 2. The Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Low where
vessel 80 is described as a multistage separation vessel. Patel '744 discloses
6
Appeal2014-009500
Application 12/117,364
absorber column 32 with at least one mass transfer zone. Patel '744, col. 7,
11. 27, 33-34. While we appreciate the Examiner's position that Patel '744's
absorber column 32 may be used to separate vapor and liquid in a methane
gas stream, the Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Patel '744
of a multistage separation vessel or any disclosure that Patel's absorber
column 32 is equivalent to the recited multistage separation vessel. 4
Therefore, the Examiner's finding that Low and/or Patel '744 disclose a
multistage separation vessel is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. As the rejection of claim 1 is based on erroneous factual findings,
the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that "[t]he legal conclusion of
obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not
supported by facts it cannot stand."). Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) of independent claim 1 and claims 2-3, 5,
10, 11, 15 and 17 which are dependent on claim 1.
Re} ections 3 and 4
The Examiner rejects claims 6-9 and 12 based on various
combinations of Low, Patel '744, Patel '521, Hahn, and Ransbarger. Final
Act. 8, 9. Claims 6-9 and 12 are all ultimately dependent on claim 1.
Appeal Br. 16-17 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not rely on Hahn or
Ransbarger to cure the deficiencies in Low and Patel '744 noted above for
4 We note that the symbol used by for absorber column 32 in Patel '7 44 is
similar to the symbol used by Appellants for multi-stage separation vessel
404. However, given the different terminology used by Appellants and Patel
'744, the Examiner has not offered any evidence or technical reasoning to
show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
absorber column of Patel '744 to be a "multistage separation vessel" as that
term is used in Appellants' Specification and claims.
7
Appeal2014-009500
Application 12/117,364
claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6-9 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons stated above with respect to
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-12, 15, and 17 is
reversed.
REVERSED
8