Ex Parte Ren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2018

14206556 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/206,556 03/12/2014
34477 7590 09/28/2018
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
(EMHC-E2-4A-296)
Spring, TX 77389
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei Ren
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.
2012EM358 7770
EXAMINER
JONES, LOGAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2018 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):
urc-mail-formalities@exxonmobil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte WEI REN, KENN. SURY, PAULL. TANAKA,
DAVID C. RENNARD, SCOTT R. CLINGMAN,
and THOMAS R. PALMER1
Appeal2018-002329
Application 14/206,556
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Wei Ren et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company as
the real party in interest.
Appeal2018-002329
Application 14/206,556
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a method of dewatering a mine
tailings slurry. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention
and reads as follows:
1. A method of dewatering a mine tailings slurry, the method
compnsmg:
combining the mine tailings slurry, which includes mine tailings
and water, with a water-absorbing polymer, which is
encapsulated in a coating material that inhibits water absorption
thereby, to generate an augmented mine tailings slurry;
piping the augmented mine tailings slurry through a transfer pipe
to a mine tailings dewatering site;
distributing the augmented mine tailings slurry within the mine
tailings dewatering site to form a mine tailings deposit; and
initiating water absorption by a mass of water-absorbing polymer
subsequent to the piping, wherein the initiating includes
degrading the coating material to permit water absorption by the
mass of water-absorbing polymer;
wherein the mine tailings slurry is a waste stream from a mining
operation that utilizes hot water extraction technology to liberate
a bitumen from a finely crushed bitumen-containing ore.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected
(i) claims 1-3 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Clarke (US 4,240,897, issued Dec. 23, 1980) in view of
Bland (US 2014/0144812 Al, published May 29, 2014), Lyon (US
2
Appeal2018-002329
Application 14/206,556
2,561,442, issued July 24, 1951), and Holt (US 2011/0312858 Al, published
Dec. 22, 2011 ); and
(ii) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over
Clarke in view of Bland, Lyon, Holt, and Clifford (US 5,093,008, issued
Mar. 3, 1992).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 5---8--35 USC§ 103(a)--Clarke/Bland/Lyon/Holt
Appellants argue claims 1-3 and 5-8 as a group, providing no
separate arguments for patentability of any particular claims. See Appeal Br.
10-15. Accordingly, we take claim 1 as representative of the group, and
claims 2, 3, and 5-8 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Clarke is directed to a method of dewatering
a mine tailings slurry in a hot water extraction process for removing bitumen
from oil sands. Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Clarke
employs a vacuum filter unit to dry wet mine tailings slurry, and proposes to
modify the process, in view of Bland, to replace the vacuum filter unit with a
dewatering technique which combines the mine tailings slurry with a water-
absorbing particle to generate an augmented mine tailings slurry, and
initiating water absorption by the polymer. Id. at 4--5. According to the
Examiner, this modification would have been obvious in order to reduce
processing inefficiencies and energy needs over those in the Clarke drying
technique. Id. at 5.
The Examiner notes that the combined teachings of Clarke and Bland
do not disclose piping augmented mine tailings through a transfer pipe to a
mine tailings dewatering site, and distributing the same within the
3
Appeal2018-002329
Application 14/206,556
dewatering site to form a mine tailings deposit. Final Act. 6. The Examiner
turns to Lyon as disclosing piping an augmented slurry from mixing zone
apparatus 10 through a transfer pipe to a dewatering site ( dehydrating zone
13), and distributing the slurry to form a deposit within that tank or bin. Id.
at 7-8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
incorporate transfer of the augmented mine tailings to a large dewatering site
in the form of a vessel, so as to allow the mixing apparatus, which
introduces the water-absorbing polymer into the mine tailings slurry, to
remain an economical size. Id. at 8.
The Examiner lastly finds that the combination of Clarke, Bland, and
Lyon, and especially Bland, does not disclose the use of a coating material
on the water-absorbing polymer, nor the initiating of the water absorption by
degrading the coating material. Final Act. 8. The Examiner relies on Holt
as disclosing using an encapsulant for water-absorbing polymers, to delay
reaction time in order to facilitate or improve placement, application,
injection, mixing, and/or pumping the polymer material. Id. at 8-9. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to coat or encapsulate
the water-absorbing polymer taught in Bland to improve the mixing step
therein, and to improve the piping of the augmented slurry to a dewatering
site, as taught in Lyon. Id. at 10.
Appellants present two main lines of argument. The first relates to
several reasons why Clarke does not disclose various limitations set forth in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-12. More specifically, Appellants argue that,
because Clarke produces "dry tailings," the tailings stream cannot be a
slurry, which further cannot result in an augmented mine slurry, in that it
4
Appeal2018-002329
Application 14/206,556
would not be necessary to augment the dry tailings with a water-absorbent
polymer because the tailings are already dried by vacuum filtration. Id. at
11-12.
The arguments are not responsive to the stated grounds of rejection,
which include replacing the vacuum filtration process of Clarke with the
slurry augmentation process of Bland, which ultimately results in dry
tailings using a different approach. See Ans. 2-3. The arguments do not
take into account the Examiner's proposed modification, and are essentially
attacks on the teachings of Clarke individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where rejections are based on combinations of references). Appellants'
arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection.
Appellants additionally argue that Lyon does not disclose a step of
distributing an augmented mine tailings slurry within a mine tailings
dewatering site to form a mine tailings deposit. Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply
Br. 2-3. Appellants maintain that Lyon discloses a vessel for drying rice
using a desiccant, and not a mine tailings dewatering site, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 12. Appellants also take the position that there is no deposit
formed in the Lyon process, in that the dried rice and desiccant eventually
leave the dehydrating vessel, and are therefore not deposited in the vessel.
Id. at 13.
As to the former, Lyon is relied on as teaching the piping of a slurry to
a separate dewatering site after being augmented with a desiccant. Ans. 3.
5
Appeal2018-002329
Application 14/206,556
As used to modify the Clarke/Bland process, the slurry would be the mine
tailings and the desiccant would be the water-absorbing polymer material.
The Examiner also takes the position that the augmented slurry of
Lyon is deposited at or in the dehydrating zone/dewatering site, and thereby
forms a deposit, which will remain in place for a time sufficient to effect the
extraction of a sufficient amount of moisture. Ans. 3. Appellants'
Specification contains no particular or special definition of the term
"deposit" that would exclude the holding of the slurry in a vessel during
dewatering.
To the extent that Appellants may be arguing that a "deposit" must
forever remain in the location where the slurry is distributed, Appellants'
Specification appears to undermine that position. In particular, passages in
paragraphs 69, 90, and 94, as well as Figures 2 and 5 taken in conjunction,
disclose that dewatered mine tailings may be transported from a dewatering
site, where the mine tailings are said to form a deposit, to a different mine
tailings diposal site. Appellants do not present persuasive evidence that
there is a difference between this operation, and the removal of the
dewatered slurry from the dewatering vessel disclosed in Lyon.
Appellants' arguments thus do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's grounds of rejection of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is
sustained. Claims 2, 3, and 5-8 fall with claim 1.
Claim 4--35 US.C. § 103(a)--Clarke/Bland/Lyon/Holt/Clifford
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for patentability of
claim 4, and thus rely only on those arguments presented for claim 1, from
6
Appeal2018-002329
Application 14/206,556
which claim 4 depends. In that we are not apprised, in those arguments, of
error in the Examiner's rejection, the rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-8 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7