14468714 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

Ex Parte Strybos

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 25, 2018

14468714 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 14/468,714 08/26/2014 Ronald STRYBOS Serie 9973 CNT 1098 40582 7590 01/29/2018 American Air Liquide, Inc. Intellectual Property Department 9811 Katy Freeway Suite 100 Houston, TX 77024 EXAMINER WANG, WEI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/29/2018 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): IP-U S Office @ airliquide.com Neva. Dare-c @ airliquide. com Justin.Murray @ airliquide.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RONALD STRYBOS Appeal 2017-004113 Application 14/468,714 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the Applicant, Air Liquide Large Industries, U.S. LP. Appeal Br. 3 Appeal 2017-004113 Application 14/468,714 According to Appellant, the invention is directed to a “storage wellhead allowing on-line system maintenance and testing.” Spec. 1,1. 18. Below, we reproduce claim 22, which is the only claim on appeal2: 22. A method of on-line system maintenance and testing of a storage wellhead, comprising performing testing or maintenance on a first fluidically parallel and interchangeable hydrogen passage of a hydrogen wellhead spool, the first fluidically parallel and interchangeable hydrogen passage comprising at least one first automatic hydrogen valve configured to fail close, while a second fluidically parallel and interchangeable hydrogen passage of the hydrogen wellhead spool simultaneously remains in service, the second fluidically parallel and interchangeable hydrogen passage comprising at least one second automatic hydrogen valve configured to fail close, or performing testing or maintenance on a first fluidically parallel and interchangeable brine passage of a brine wellhead spool, the first fluidically parallel and interchangeable brine passage comprising at least one first automatic brine valve configured to fail close, while a second fluidically parallel and interchangeable brine passage of the brine wellhead spool simultaneously remains in service, the second fluidically parallel and interchangeable brine passage comprising at least one second automatic brine valve configured to fail close, wherein the hydrogen wellhead spool operates at a pressure greater than 2400 psig and less than 4000 psig, and wherein the brine wellhead spool operates at a pressure greater than 2400 psig and less than 4000 psig. 2 We reformat the claim and remove bullet points. 2 Appeal 2017-004113 Application 14/468,714 REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oates (US 8,690,476 B2, iss. Apr. 8, 2014) and Flanders (US 7,905,251 B2, iss. Mar. 15, 2011). ANALYSIS Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner’s Non- Final Office Action and Answer, and Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 22 as obvious based on a combination of Oates and Flanders. Thus, for the reasons discussed below, we sustain the rejection. The Examiner finds that Oates discloses an underground storage cavern with both hydrogen and brine wellheads, and that Flanders discloses a wellhead system designed for on-line maintenance and testing, substantially as claimed. Non-Final Office Action mailed June 3, 2016 (“Non-Final Action”), 2—5. The Examiner also finds that Oates does not disclose operating each of the hydrogen and brine wellheads within the claimed pressure range, but determines “that the pressure rating of. . . pressure equipment is a result effective] variable [that is used] to optimize the performance of the pressure equipment in order to avoid . . . failure.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner concludes, it would have been obvious to operate the wellheads within the claimed range of pressures. Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because, according to the Appellant: [t]he skilled artisan would have nothing to optimize, as the same pipe specification] (i.e. the same material) would be used for any pressure within the claimed range. Likewise, as the same 3 Appeal 2017-004113 Application 14/468,714 material would be used within this range, there is no cost or material optimization either. As there is no obvious result to be obtained, there is no result effective variable at play. Taking the [E]xaminer[’]s argument a step further, if one were to try to argue that these pressure ranges are result effective variables for safe operating pressures within the cavern itself, this [determination] fails as well. The minimum and maximum safe operating pressures within an underground salt cavern are dictated by the depth of the cavern and the overburden pressure. To say that these operating pressures are result effective variables for the cavern would be to imply that the skilled artisan would design the above ground equipment first, then solution mine (or find) a cavern with the appropriate depth with which to use this equipment. This is the opposite of what a skilled artisan would recognize as the proper process. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art of storing gas in an underground salt cavern . . . would not understand that these operating pressures are result effective variables. It is the design and depth of the cavern that, in fact, define the minimum and maximum pressures[, and] not the inverse. Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2—3. Restated, according to Appellant, wellhead operating pressures are not result effective variables that are optimized, but, rather, are results that are determined based on other variables. We are not persuaded by Appellant, however. Oates discloses a specific example for a cavern with a depth of 2500 feet, in which the pressure is between a minimum cavern pressure of 0.2 psig per foot of depth, and a maximum cavern pressure of 1.0 psig per foot of depth, leading to a maximum pressure in the cavern of 2500 psig, which is within the claimed pressure ranges. See Oates col. 5,11. 22-44. Further, inasmuch as Oates does not limit cavern depth, in accordance with Oates’s disclosure, a cavern 4 Appeal 2017-004113 Application 14/468,714 that is 3500 feet deep, for example, would have a maximum pressure of 3500 psig, which also is within the claimed pressure ranges. Conversely, Appellant’s Specification does not establish that the claimed pressure ranges are critical or essential, as opposed to being arbitrarily chosen. For example, Appellant’s Specification does not explain why the claimed pressure ranges are used, or whether they are computed based on one or more variables. See Spec. 4,11. 16—18, 24—26. Instead, the Specification states little more than that each of the wellhead spools may operate within the claimed range. See id. Thus, the claimed pressure ranges appear to be arbitrary. For the above reasons, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 22. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 22. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED 5