Ex Parte Touzalin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14415255 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/415,255 01/16/2015
23599 7590 09/26/2018
MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.
2200 CLARENDON BL VD.
SUITE 1400
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
Olivier Touzalin
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.
PET-2991 5473
EXAMINER
STEIN, MICHELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
docketing@mwzb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER TOUZALIN, PHILIBERT LEFLAIVE,
DIAMANTIS ASTERIS, DELPHINE LARGETEAU,
and JEAN LUC NOCCA
Appeal 2017-011425
Application 14/415,255
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, WESLEY B. DERRICK,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1-17 of Application 14/415,255 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA). Non-Final Act. (Dec. 28, 2016) 4--10.
Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, IFP ENERGIES NOUVELLES, which is
also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011425
Application 14/415,255
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a process for the treatment
of a gasoline comprising diolefins, olefins and sulphur-containing
compounds including mercaptans so as to provide a light fraction with a low
sulphur content while preserving the octane value. Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is representative of the points at issue and is reproduced
below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
1. A process for the treatment of a gasoline comprising
diolefins, mono-olefins and sulphur containing compounds
including mercaptans, said process comprising the following:
a) carrying out demercaptanization by addition of at
least a portion of the mercaptans onto the mono-olefins by
bringing gasoline into contact with at least one first catalyst, at
a temperature in the range 50°C to 250°C, at a pressure in the
range 0.4 to 5 MPa and with a liquid hourly space velocity
(LHS V) in the range O. 5 to 10 h-1, the first catalyst being in the
sulphide form and comprising a first support, at least one metal
of group VIII and at least one metal of group VIb of the
periodic classification of the elements, the % by weight,
expressed as the oxide equivalent of the metal of group VIII
with respect to the total catalyst weight, being in the range 1 %
to 30% by weight and the% by weight, expressed as the oxide
equivalent of the metal of group VIb, being in the range 1 % to
30% with respect to the total catalyst weight;
b) treating the gasoline obtained from a) with hydrogen
in a distillation column comprising at least one reaction zone
comprising at least one second catalyst comprising a second
support and at least one metal from group VIII, the conditions
of b) being selected such that the following operations are
carried out simultaneously in said distillation column:
I) distillation separating the gasoline obtained from a)
into a light gasoline fraction which is depleted in sulphur-
2
Appeal 2017-011425
Application 14/415,255
containing compounds and into a heavy gasoline fraction with a
boiling point which is higher than that of the light gasoline and
comprising the majority of the sulphur-containing compounds,
evacuating the light gasoline fraction at a point located above
the reaction zone and evacuating the heavy gasoline fraction at
a point below the reaction zone;
II) bringing a fraction of the gasoline obtained from a)
into contact with the second catalyst, carrying out the following
reactions:
i) thioetherification, by addition of a portion of the
mercaptans onto a portion of the diolefins to form thioethers;
ii) selective hydrogenation of a portion of the diolefins to
olefins; and optionally
iii) isomerization of the olefins.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-8, 10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(pre-AIA) as obvious over Heam,2 in view ofMagne-Drisch, 3 and
Bouchy, 4 as evidenced by or, alternatively, further in view of
Heam '245. 5 Non-Final Act. 4--9.
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) as obvious
over Heam in view of Magne-Drisch and Bouchy as evidenced by
2 US 5,597,476, issued Jan. 28, 1997 ("Heam").
3 US 2005/0061711 Al, published Mar. 24, 2005 ("Magne-Drisch").
4 US 2007 /0173674 Al, published Jul. 26, 2007 ("Bouchy").
5 US 2001/0050245 Al, published Dec. 13, 2001 ("Heam '245" or "Heam
2001 ").
3
Appeal 2017-011425
Application 14/415,255
or, alternatively, further in view of Heam '245 and Boyer. 6 Id. at
9.
3. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
as obvious over Heam in view of Magne-Drisch and Bouchy as
evidenced by or, alternatively, further in view of Heam '245 and
Groten. 7 Id. at 9--10.
DISCUSSION
We adopt the reasoning of the Examiner as set forth in the Non-Final
Office Action (dated Dec. 28, 2016) and the Answer (dated July 13, 2017).
The following is added for emphasis and clarity.
Rejection 1. Appellant seeks review of the rejection of claims 1-8,
10, and 13-17 as obvious over Heam, Magne-Drisch, Bouchy, and Heam
'245. Appeal Br. 2-5.
Claim 1 requires "carrying out demercaptanization by addition of at
least a portion of the mercaptans onto the mono-olefins." Appeal Br.
(Claims App. 7). A mercaptan has the general chemical structure of a thiol
appended to a hydrocarbon (R-S-H). Spec. 4. The Specification describes
the demercaptanization step as "transforming light sulphur-containing
compounds from the mercaptans family ... into heavier sulphur-containing
compounds." Id. 9. These compound are later removed. Id. 16.
The Examiner determined that Heam teaches "demercaptanization by
addition of at least a portion of the mercaptans onto the olefins by bringing
6 US 2006/0180502 Al, published Aug. 17, 2006 ("Boyer").
7 US 6,946,068 B2, issued Sep. 20, 2005 ("Groten").
4
Appeal 2017-011425
Application 14/415,255
gasoline into contact with at least one first catalyst." Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellant asserts that this is erroneous. Appellant argues that Heam teaches
that a naphtha hydrocarbon stream containing mercaptans, diolefins and
olefins is catalyzed "to react a portion of said mercaptans with a portion of
the di-olefins to form sulfides." Appeal Br. 3 ( emphasis in original). That
is, Appellant asserts that Heam teaches the reaction of mercaptans with
diolefins rather than mono-olefins.
In response, the Examiner asserts that "Heam teaches the same
gasoline range feed, containing both olefins and diolefins ... [and] the same
reactions steps." Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner further finds that "it is
expected that the same reaction of mono-olefins, and the same products
would inherently result, since Heam teaches the same feeds applied to the
same process steps at the same conditions. It is not seen where Applicant
has distinguished the process steps in this regard." Id. The Examiner
additionally finds that both Bouchy and Heam '245 teach that gasoline under
the conditions of Heam "would result in reaction of mercaptans with mono-
olefins to create sulfides." Id.
Appellant asserts that mercaptans are preferentially reactive with
diolefins rather than olefins. Appeal Br. 4. This may be correct but the
claim language requires only "a portion of the mercaptans" react with the
mono-olefins. Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's
determination that the process of the combination would result in a portion
of the mercaptans reacting with mono-olefins.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown reversible error in this regard.
Appellant additionally asserts that "[ n ]othing in Heam or Heam 2001
suggests the use of a bimetallic catalyst in sulfide form which would enable
5
Appeal 2017-011425
Application 14/415,255
reacting mercaptans with mono-olefins. Regardless of whether the feed in
Heam is the same as in the present process, the catalysts of the examples are
different." Appeal Br. 4. This is not persuasive as the Examiner relies upon
the combined teaching of Heam and Magne-Drisch, rather than Heam and
Heam '245 (Heam 2001), as teaching the catalyst. Non-Final Act. 5 ,r 7.
Appellant additionally argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have combined the teachings of Heam and Magne-Drisch as it
would render one or the other of the references unsuitable for its intended
purpose. Appeal Br. 4--5. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir.
1984) ( combinations that render the prior art 'inoperable for its intended
purpose' may fail to support a conclusion of obviousness).
This is not persuasive. The Examiner found that Magne-Drisch
teaches a catalyst for the reaction of mercaptans with olefins. Final Act. 5
( citing Magne-Drisch ,r 3 7). Magne-Drisch teaches "to treat light gasoline
... by an addition reaction of olefins, the saturated sulfur-containing
compounds of mercaptan type as well as the sulfides or disulfides that are
optionally present." Magne-Drisch ,r 3 7. The same reference teaches
"conditions of addition of the olefins to the mercaptans." Id., Abstract. In
the combination posited by the Examiner, the catalyst of Magne-Drisch
would be acting in keeping with its known and intended function.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in this regard.
Rejections 2 and 3. Appellant relies upon the foregoing arguments
in support of its appeal of the rejections of claims 9, 11, and 12. Appeal Br.
6. As we have not found such arguments persuasive, we determine that
Appellant has not shown reversible error with regard to these claims.
6
Appeal 2017-011425
Application 14/415,255
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-17 as obvious 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).
AFFIRMED
7