Ex Parte Van De Lisdonk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2018

13320770 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/320,770 11/16/2011
23632 7590 11/19/2018
SHELL OIL COMPANY
POBOX576
HOUSTON, TX 77001-0576
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carolus Antonius Cornelis Van De Lisdonk
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.
TS8758 US 4385
EXAMINER
MENGESHA,WEBESHET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2018 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
Shelldocketing@cpaglobal.com
shellusdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CAROLUS ANTONIUS CORNELIS VAN DE LISDONK,
WOUTER JAN MEIRING, and
ROBERT KLEIN NAGEL VOORT
Appeal 2018-0013 7 5
Application 13/320,770
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9--13, 15-19, and 22-26.
Br. 1, 2, 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons
explained below, we do not find error in the Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the rejection of these claims.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a method of cooling a gaseous
hydrocarbon stream to produce a liquefied hydrocarbon stream." Spec. 1: 1-
Appeal 2018-001375
Application 13/320,770
3. Method claims 1 and 16, and apparatus claims 13 and 22, are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A method of cooling a gaseous hydrocarbon stream to
produce a liquefied hydrocarbon stream, comprising:
cooling the gaseous hydrocarbon stream in one or more
heat exchangers using a first refrigerant from a first refrigerant
circuit in which said first refrigerant is compressed in a first
compressor driven by a first gas turbine having a first inlet air
stream, said cooling providing a cooled hydrocarbon stream;
liquefying the cooled hydrocarbon stream using a second
refrigerant, which second refrigerant is compressed in a second
compressor driven by a second gas turbine having a second
inlet air stream, and cooled at least by heat exchanging with
said first refrigerant from the first refrigerant circuit, said
liquefying providing a liquefied hydrocarbon stream;
providing a stream of a chilled coolant, comprising
chilling a fluid;
dividing a cooling duty available in the chilled coolant
between at least first and second parts, in accordance with a
common input parameter; and,
cooling one or both of said first and second inlet air
streams with the chilled coolant, whereby the cooling duty
available in the first part is used to cool the first inlet air stream,
and the cooling duty available in the second part is used to cool
the second inlet air stream,
wherein said providing of the cooled hydrocarbon stream
comprises producing a partially condensed hydrocarbon stream
from the gaseous hydrocarbon stream and passing the partially
condensed hydrocarbon stream through a gas/liquid phase
separator and drawing a liquid bottom stream and a vaporous
overhead stream from the gas/liquid phase separator, and
wherein the fluid is actively chilled using refrigeration duty
taken from the liquid bottom stream, wherein the common input
parameter is used to divide the cooling duty available in the
chilled coolant such as to provide relatively more chilling duty
to the inlet air stream of the gas turbine that drives the most
2
Appeal 2018-001375
Application 13/320,770
constraining refrigerant circuit of the first and second
refrigerant circuits.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Sharma et al.
Fanning et al.
Mak
us 4,710,214
US 6,324,867 B 1
US 2009/0282836 Al
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL 1
Dec. 1, 1987
Dec. 4, 2001
Nov. 19, 2009
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-13, 15-19, and 22-26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. I03(a) as unpatentable over Fanning, Mak, and Sharman.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the four independent claims together (see Br. 8, 9)
and do not present any additional arguments for any of the dependent claims.
Accordingly, we select method claim 1 for review, with the remaining
claims (i.e., 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-13, 15-19, and 22-26) standing or falling with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We first note that claim 1 recites "first and second refrigerant
circuits." Although there is antecedent basis for the "first" such circuit,
there is no antecedent basis for the "second" such circuit. However, a
review of Appellants' Specification, and also Appellants' Appeal Brief ( and
particularly page 3 thereof), readily leads one to understand that the recited
"second" circuit correlates to the "liquefying" step which describes a
"second" refrigerant, compressor, turbine, and air stream. Thus, based on
this understanding of "second refrigerant circuit," we proceed with our
analysis.
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 23-26 as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2018-001375
Application 13/320,770
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Fanning for
disclosing the multiple refrigerant circuits, compressors, turbines, and air
streams, but acknowledges that Fanning "does not teach dividing the cooling
duty ... based on a common input parameter" as recited. Final Act. 4---6,
Ans. 5, 6. The Examiner states that "dividing a coolant or a heat transfer
fluid based on a certain factor ... is well known in the art, as taught by
Mak." Final Act. 6. The Examiner also provides a reason for incorporating
such teachings into Fanning, i.e., "for the purpose of maximizing output and
power generation of the turbines." Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 4, 7. The
Examiner also expresses a reason for the additional reliance on Sharma, and
the motivation for doing so. See Final Act. 8.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's reliance on Sharma;
instead, Appellants challenge the Examiner's reliance on Mak and/or the
usage of Mak's teachings in Fanning. Br. 9-13. For example, Appellants
contend "Mak specifically lacks a disclosure of 'first and second refrigerant
circuits."' Br. 9. However, the Examiner explains that Mak was not relied
on for teaching such circuits, but instead, "Mak is only introduce[ d] for its
teaching of dividing or splitting a coolant based on a common input
parameter." Ans. 3, 5-7; see also Final Act. 6 (citing Mak ,r 26). 2
Appellants' other arguments pertaining to Mak disclosing only a single
turbine, or contending that "[ a ]dditional modification[ s] to Mak would be
required" (Br. 10, and 11-13), are equally not persuasive because the
Examiner did not (a) rely on Mak for teaching such structure or (b) attempt
2 Paragraph 26 of Mak states, "[t]he flow ratio between 7 and 6 depends on
the cooling duty required by the air pre-coolers that is a function of ambient
temperatures and gas turbine capacity."
4
Appeal 2018-001375
Application 13/320,770
to modify Mak. See Ans. 3 ("[T]he primary reference Fanning disclosed"
such structure, but not "dividing the cooling duty."). Accordingly,
Appellants' contentions focusing on Mak' s structure, or a modification
thereto, is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants also contend, "Fanning teaches away from modifying its
disclosure." Br. 13. This is because, "Fanning teaches to maintain 'the inlet
air for [both] the gas turbines at a constant low temperature."' Br. 13.
However, Appellants do not explain how maintaining a constant low air
temperature at the gas turbine inlets precludes dividing coolant flow to such
inlets. The Examiner states that nowhere in Fanning is there a disclosure
that "teaches excluding or teach[ es] against the concept of splitting a cooling
duty in a coolant based on common parameter." Ans. 8. In other words,
Appellants identify no passage in Fanning that might be critical of applying
Mak's teaching; nor do Appellants identify where Fanning teaches that the
air temperature at both inlets must be identical ( only that they must be "at a
constant low temperature"). Br. 13. Thus, Appellants' "teaching away"
argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants further contend, "Fanning and Mak relate to non-
analogous art." Br. 14. Generally, a non-analogous art argument attempts to
distinguish a reference from the claimed device, not that the cited references
themselves are non-analogous vis-a-vis each other. Thus, to the extent
Appellants contend that Fanning and Mak are not analogous to Appellants'
device, the Examiner dispels that notion by explaining how each is
analogous to Appellants' device. See Ans. 9. However, to the extent
Appellants are contending that Fanning and Mak are not, themselves,
combinable together, we disagree because Appellants do not explain how
5
Appeal 2018-001375
Application 13/320,770
Mak' s teaching of dividing coolant duty is unable to be employed in
Fanning.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9--13, 15-19, and 22-26
as being obvious over Fanning, Mak, and Sharma.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-13, 15-19, and 22-
26 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)) maybe extended (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv)).
AFFIRMED
6