Ex Parte Robinson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

12882415 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/882,415 09/15/2010 Earl T. Robinson
77003 7590 06/13/2016
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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.
FN-0051 US NPl 2906
EXAMINER
AKRAM, IMRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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 EARL T. ROBINSON1
Appeal2014-009573
Application 12/882,415
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and MARK
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 2, 4--15, 18, and 19 as
unpatentable over Graboski (US 3,904,386, issued Sept. 9, 1975) in view of
Wyckoff (US 6,419 ,888 B 1, issued Jul. 16, 2002) and of claim 17 as
unpatentable over these references in combination with Chiu (US
1 GreatPoint Energy, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009573
Application 12/882,415
2010/0050654 Al, pub. Mar. 4, 2010). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a process for generating a methane-enriched raw
product stream and a syngas raw product stream comprising the steps of:
reacting a first carbonaceous feedstock in the presence of oxygen in a
syngas generator to produce a first gas (i.e. syngas) stream;
separating the first gas stream into a hydromethanation gas feed
stream and the syngas raw product stream; and
reacting the hydromethanation gas feed stream with a second
carbonaceous feedstock in the presence of hydromethanation catalyst in a
hydromethanation reactor to produce the methane-enriched raw product
stream (independent claim 1; see also independent claim 1 7). The
hydromethanation catalyst may comprise an alkali metal (dependent claim
6).
A copy of representative claims l and 6, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A process for generating a methane-enriched raw product
stream and a syngas raw product stream from one or more
carbonaceous feedstocks, the process comprising the steps of:
(a) supplying a first carbonaceous feedstock, a first
oxygen-rich gas stream, and optionally an aqueous stream
comprising one or both of water and steam, to a syngas
generator;
(b) reacting the first carbonaceous feedstock in the
presence of oxygen and optionally the aqueous stream, in the
syngas generator to produce a first gas stream at a first
temperature and a first pressure, the first gas stream comprising
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, heat energy and optionally steam;
( c) introducing the first gas stream into a first heat
exchanger unit, optionally with a quench stream comprising one
2
Appeal2014-009573
Application 12/882,415
or both of water and steam, to remove heat energy and generate
a cooled first gas stream at a second temperature and a second
pressure, the cooled first gas stream comprising hydrogen,
carbon monoxide and optionally steam;
( d) separating the cooled first gas stream into a
hydromethanation gas feed stream and the syngas raw product
stream, the syngas raw product stream comprising carbon
monoxide, hydrogen and optionally steam;
( e) optionally adding one or both of steam and heat
energy to the hydromethanation gas feed stream such that the
resulting hydromethanation gas feed stream comprises
hydrogen, carbon monoxide and steam at a third temperature
and a third pressure;
( f) introducing a second carbonaceous feedstock, a
hydromethanation catalyst, the hydromethanation gas feed
stream and optionally a second oxygen-rich gas stream, to a
hydromethanation reactor;
(g) reacting the second carbonaceous feedstock in the
hydromethanation reactor in the presence of carbon monoxide,
hydrogen, steam, hydromethanation catalyst and optionally
oxygen, at a fourth temperature of at least about 700°F to about
1500°F, and a fourth pressure of from about 250 psig to about
800 psig, to produce the methane-enriched raw product stream,
wherein the methane-enriched raw product stream comprises
methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide and heat energy, and wherein the methane-
enriched raw product stream comprises at least 50 mol%
methane plus carbon dioxide (based on the moles of methane,
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the methane-
enriched raw product stream); and
(h) withdrawing the methane-enriched product stream
from the hydromethanation reactor, wherein:
the reaction in step (g) has a syngas demand, a steam
demand and a heat demand;
the amount of carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the
hydromethanation gas feed stream (or the superheated
hydromethanation gas feed stream if present) is sufficient to at
least meet the syngas demand of the reaction in step (g);
if the amount of steam in the hydromethanation gas feed
stream from step ( d) is insufficient to meet the steam demand of
3
Appeal2014-009573
Application 12/882,415
the reaction in step (g), then step ( e) is present and steam is
added to the hydromethanation gas feed stream in an amount
that is sufficient to at least meet the steam demand of the
reaction in step (g); and
if the second temperature is insufficient to meet the heat
demand of the reaction in step (g), then step ( e) is present and
heat energy is added to the hydromethanation gas feed stream in
an amount that is at least sufficient to meet the heat demand of
the reaction in step (g).
6. The process of claim 1, wherein the hydromethanation
catalyst comprises an alkali metal.
Appellant presents arguments specifically directed to claims 1 and 6
only (Br. 3-13). No additional separate arguments have been presented
regarding the other appealed claims including independent claim 17 (id. at
10). Therefore, our disposition of this appeal will focus on claims 1 and 6.
We will sustain the rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
The Examiner finds that Graboski discloses a gasifier for producing
syngas and a hydromethanation reactor for producing a methane-enriched
product stream (Final Action 4--5).
Appellant points out that Graboski discloses a combined shift and
methanation reactor and argues that "[t]he 'methanation' referenced in
Graboski ... is not to be confused with 'hydromethanation' in the context of
the present invention" (Br. 8).
In response, the Examiner correctly explains that the materials and
conditions in Graboski' s reactor correspond to the materials and conditions
in Appellant's claimed hydromethanation reactor (Ans. 5). Appellant does
not disagree (i.e., no reply brief has been filed). Based on the record before
4
Appeal2014-009573
Application 12/882,415
us, the recited hydromethanation reactor and the reactions occurring therein
are indistinguishable from the reactor and reactions of Graboski.
The Examiner finds that Graboski does not disclose the limitation
wherein the generated syngas is separated into a hydromethanation gas feed
stream and a syngas raw product stream (i.e., all of Graboski' s syn gas is fed
to the combined shift and methanation reactor) (Final Action 5) but
concludes that it would have been obvious to split Graboski's syngas into a
stream for the methanation reactor and a separate syngas stream for other
purposes in view of Wyckoff (id.).
According to Appellant, "[ w ]hile a natural gas stream is in fact split
and diverted to different possible portions of the Wyckoff process, it is not
seen how that relates to the splitting (and required cooling) of the syngas
stream in the context of the present invention" (Br. 10).
The mere fact that Wyckoff's disclosure relates to a natural gas stream
rather than a syngas stream does not reveal error in the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion. By Appellant's own concession, Wyckoff teaches
splitting a process stream into separate streams that are diverted to different
portions of the process. The Examiner finds this teaching would have
suggested separating Graboski' s syngas stream into separate streams of
methanation feedstock and syngas product respectively. Appellant does not
explain with any reasonable specificity why the Examiner's finding is
erroneous.
The Examiner finds that the methanation catalyst of Graboski
comprises an alkali metal as required by claim 6 (Final Action 5).
Appellant disputes this finding by arguing that Graboski discloses an
alkali Group I-A promoter and that "the disclosure of an alkali promoter
does not necessarily mean that the catalyst is also an alkali metal" (Br. 12).
5
Appeal2014-009573
Application 12/882,415
The Examiner responds by referring to Specification paragraphs 268
and 269 as evidence that the claim 6 catalyst encompasses the alkali-
promoted catalyst of Graboski (Ans. 6). Appellant does not challenge the
Examiner's position in the record before us. Under these circumstances, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 6 encompasses a methanation catalyst
comprising an alkali metal promoter as disclosed by Graboski.
Because Appellant shows no harmful error on the Examiner's part, we
sustain the§ 103 rejections advanced in this appeal.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(l).
AFFIRMED
6