Ex Parte Van Dijk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

13056161 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

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.
13/056,161 01/27/2011 Frederick Jan Van Dijk TS8717USAP 1519
23632 7590 03/14/2017
SHF! T OH miUPANY EXAMINER
P O BOX 2463 KING, BRIAN M
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2017 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERICK JAN VAN DIJK
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frederick Jan Van Dijk (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9, 11—16, and 18—20, which
are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Shell Oil Company. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1. Apparatus for treating a mixed hydrocarbon feed stream, the
apparatus at least comprising an NGL recover)' system
comprising:
(a) an expander to expand the mixed hydrocarbon feed
stream into a mixed-phase hydrocarbon stream;
(b) a first gas/liqnid separator to separate the mixed-phase
hydrocarbon stream to provide at least a light overhead stream
and a heavy bottom stream;
(c) a first compressor having a first inlet and a. first outlet,
to compress the light overhead stream and to provide a first
compressed light stream;
(d) a second compressor having a second inlet and a
second outlet, to compress the first compressed light stream to
provide a further compressed light stream;
(e) a first compressor recycle line around the first
compressor between the first outlet and the first inlet, wherein
the first compressor recycle line is an uncooled, recycle line: and
(f) a second compressor recycle line provided with one or
more in-line coolers around the second compressor between the
second outlet and the second inlet.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Agar US 4,156,578 May 29, 1979
Bellinger US 4,230,437 Oct. 28, 1980
Trebble US 6,237,365 B1 May 29, 2001
Minta US 6,539,747 B2 Apr. 1, 2003
Mak US 2004/0237580 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
Wilding US 7,219,512 B1 May 22, 2007
Hawrysz US 2007/0193303 A1 Aug. 23, 2007
Darredeau US 2009/0025364 A1 Jan. 29, 2009
2
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3—5, 7, 11—14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Trebble, Bellinger, and Agar. Final
Act. 2—6.
II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and Hawrysz. Id. at 7.
III. Claims 6, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and Mak. Id. at 7—8, 10-
13.
IV. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and Darredeau. Id. at 8—9.
V. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and Wilding. Id. at 9.
VI. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and Minta. Id. at 9—10.
VII. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, Mak, and Minta. Id. at 13—14.2
OPINION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 1114, and 18
The Examiner relies on Trebble for teaching many of the limitations
of independent claim 1, including, inter alia, a first compressor and a second
2 Even though the Examiner does not specifically identify Mak as part of
this rejection, the rejection refers to claim 20 “as being unpatentable over
Trebble/Bellinger/Agar as applied to claim 19 above” (Final Act. 13), and
the rejection of claim 19 includes Mak (id. at 11).
3
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
compressor. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner acknowledges that “Trebble
does not teach a first uncooled compressor recycle line around the first
compressor . . . and a second compressor recycle line provided with one or
more in-line coolers around the second compressor.” Id. at 3.
The Examiner finds that Bellinger teaches “an uncooled surge control
system where gas may be recycled from the outlet of the compressor ... to
the suction inlet of the compressor ... to prevent damage to the compressor
in the event that process flow is impeded by preventing the operating point
of the compressor to pass the surge line.” Id. (citing Bellinger, 1:29-49).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to modify Trebble based on the teachings of
Bellinger
so that a first uncooled compressor recycle line can be used
around the first compressor ... so that gas can be recycled from
the outlet of the compressor to the inlet of the compressor so that
in the even[t] that process flow is impeded damage can be
prevented by using the recycle line to prevent the compressor
from passing the surge line.
Id.
The Examiner also finds that Agar teaches “the use of a by-pass duct
. . . where gas flows from the outlet of a compressor . . . through a heat
exchanger which cools the gas ... to the inlet of the compressor ... to
prevent surging and overheating of the compressor.” Id. (citing Agar, Figs.
6, 10, 15, 17, 6:59—67). The Examiner finds that “precise surge control is
desirable to increase the operating range of the compressor and to avoid
unnecessary energy losses and obtain the best efficiency and is . . .
responsive to changes in composition through controlling the inlet
temperature.” Id. (citing Agar, 1:37-44). The Examiner concludes that it
4
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
modify Trebble based on the teachings of Agar “so that there is a second
compressor recycle line provided with one or more in-line coolers around
the second compressor ... to prevent surging and overheating of the
compressor as well as the increase in operating range and avoid unnecessary
energy losses while obtaining the best efficiency.” Final Act. 4.
The Examiner’s position is that “the modification of Trebble with a
recycle line per compressor would be obvious” because “[b]oth Bellinger
and Agar have shown that the use of both cooled and uncooled [recycle
lines] are well known in the art” (Ans. 16) and “[t]he use of recycle lines,
either cooled or uncooled[,] is shown to have the benefit of preventing surge
on the compressors using the recycle lines” (id. at 14). As to the
obviousness of whether the added recycle lines are cooled or uncooled, the
Examiner determines that “where to cool or not cool the recycle line would
be an obvious modification, where having both recycle lines cooled, neither
recycle line cooled[,] or only one of the recycle lines cooled would be an
obvious variant on the recycle line and as such would be obvious to have.”
Id. at 16.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to adequately explain
why “cooling is somehow only desirable in the second recycle line and
would not be applied to the first [recycle line],” such that the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness is based on impermissible hindsight. Br. 6.
Appellant relatedly argues that the Examiner does not explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to provide the first
compressor recycle line with an in-line cooler and keep the second
compressor line uncooled, instead of the opposite claimed configuration. Id.
5
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
at 11. Appellant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art might be
more likely to either select “the Agar design modification [for] both
compressors” or “the design of Bellinger for both compressors” because
“there is no indication in either reference of advantages of a combination of
a one cooled recycle line and another uncooled recycle line.” Id.
We have considered these arguments, but we ultimately do not find
them convincing. The fact that only the first compressor could have a
recycle line that is cooled or that the first and second compressors could
have recycle lines that are either both cooled or both uncooled does not
persuade us that the Examiner’s determination that it would have been
obvious for only the second compressor to have a recycle line that is cooled
is incorrect. There are only two possible alternatives with respect to cooling
for each of the added recycle streams—either cooled or uncooled. As such,
the recycle stream of each of the compressors being either of those two finite
alternatives (i.e., cooled or uncooled), including the scenario proposed by
the Examiner in which the recycle stream of the first compressor is uncooled
and the recycle stream of the second compressor is cooled, would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.
This determination stems from the fact that when there is a design
need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason
to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation, but of
ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a
combination would have been obvious to try might show that it was obvious
6
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
under § 103(a). SeeKSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007).
Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art knows that both cooled and
uncooled recycle lines address the problem of compressors passing the surge
line and sustaining damage as a result. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in
the art has good reason to pursue either of these options to control
compressor surge, and arriving at the particular design in which the recycle
stream of the first compressor is uncooled and the recycle stream of the
second compressor is cooled is the product of ordinary skill and common
sense considering the two available options for recycle lines with respect to
cooling, not the product of innovation.
We have also considered Appellant’s argument that “the alleged
problem of overheating in one (but not the other) compressor of Trebble
could be solved in an infinite variety of ways,” such as cooling fluid prior to
entry into the compressor, cooling the compressor itself, or providing for
shutdown upon reaching a predetermined temperature threshold. Br. 10.
However, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s proposed
modification of Trebble. The Examiner’s addition of recycle streams to
control compressor surge and prevent overheating (and resulting damage to
the compressors) is based on a recognition by one of ordinary skill in the art
that these expected beneficial results would have been produced by adding
recycle streams as taught by Bellinger and Agar. Upon deciding to add
recycle streams, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to
pursue either cooled or uncooled recycle streams as both are shown to be
known to achieve the objectives of controlling compressor surge and
preventing overheating and resulting damage to the compressors. That there
7
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
may be other ways to prevent overheating and damage to the compressors
does not persuade us that the Examiner’s reasoning is erroneous.
We have also considered Appellant’s argument that “the prior art of
record does not provide adequate reasoning as to why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would add expense and complexity to the system of Trebble
and include the claimed recycle lines (one of which is cooled and the other
of which is not).” Br. 8. More specifically, Appellant argues that the
Examiner fails to provide evidence that the problems of surging and
overheating were known problems with the compressors of Trebble, such
that “the proposed modification to Trebble would amount to added
complexity and cost for no apparent reason.” Id.
Appellant’s argument suggests that the proposed modification
involves tradeoffs; however, such considerations do not necessarily prevent
the proposed combination. See Medichem, S. A. v. Rolabo, S. L., 437 F.3d
1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has
simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily
obviation motivation to combine); Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202
F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit
comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use
as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of
another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed
against one another.”). The Examiner has noted advantages associated with
adding recycle lines—namely, addressing surge and overheating. The
possible disadvantages identified by Appellant—namely, complexity and
cost—have not been persuasively shown to be recognized by one of ordinary
skill in the art as outweighing the advantages identified by the Examiner.
8
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
As to Trebble’s silence regarding surge and overheating being
problems, the Examiner has made findings that “both Agar and Bellinger
teach that surge lines both cooled and uncooled are known for the prescribed
benefits” of addressing surge and overheating of compressors. Ans. 15.
Appellant has not persuasively demonstrated why the teachings of Agar and
Bellinger would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Trebble so as to avoid the problems recognized in Agar and Bellinger.
We also have considered Appellant’s argument that Bellinger teaches
away from the inclusion of any heat exchanger by its “silence with respect to
cooling.” Br. 12. This argument is not persuasive, however, because “[a]
reference does not teach away ... if it merely expresses a general preference
for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v.
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Appellant has
not identified any passage in Bellinger that actually criticizes, discredits, or
discourages the use of in-line coolers within a recycle line.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in concluding that the combination of Trebble, Bellinger, and Agar
renders obvious the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1. We
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Trebble, Bellinger, and Agar. We also sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 5, 7, 11—14, and 18, for which Appellant relies on the same
arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with
independent claim 1. See Br. 12, 13.
9
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites that “the expander and the first compressor
[associated with an uncooled recycle line] are mechanically linked by a
common drive shaft.” Br. 25 (Claims App.). In addition to the same
arguments we found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1
(id. at 13), Appellant argues that Trebble “provides a mechanical link
between the expander and a compressor, but lacks a recycle line,” whereas
Bellinger “provides an uncooled recycle line, but lacks any mechanical link
to an expander.” Id. at 12—13. We are not persuaded of Examiner error in
that the argument addresses the references individually, rather than the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner, which is based on the combination
of Trebble and Bellinger. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when
the rejection is based on a combination of the references). For the foregoing
reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Trebble, Bellinger, and Agar.
Rejection II
Dependent claim 2 recites that “the expander is one of two or more
expanders arranged in parallel, and the first compressor is one of two or
more first compressors arranged in parallel.” Br. 25 (Claims App.). The
Examiner acknowledges that Trebble, Bellinger, and Agar fail to teach this
feature, but finds that “Hawrysz teaches the use of parallel process modules
such as turbo-expanders.” Final Act. 7 (citing Hawrysz, Figs. 4, 66). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to incorporate this feature of Hawrysz into the system of
Trebble as already modified by Bellinger and Agar so that “a maximum
10
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
efficiency can be achieved between cost and design capacity through the use
of parallel equipment.” Id.
In addition to the same argument we found unpersuasive in
connection with independent claim 1 (Br. 13), Appellant argues that “the
prior art of record does not provide adequate reasoning as to why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would add expense, complexity, and size to the
system of Trebble and include elements in parallel as assertedly taught by
Hawrysz.” Id. at 15. This argument again invokes tradeoffs, and we are not
persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
increased cost and complexity would necessarily outweigh the gains in
efficiency advanced by the Examiner.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has not provided sufficient
evidence to support that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to
try any modification to Trebble because there is no mention “of any problem
with the cost of Trebble.” Id. As to Trebble’s silence regarding cost or
efficiency being problematic, Appellant has not persuasively demonstrated
why the teachings of Hawrysz would not have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Trebble so as to improve Trebble as outlined by the
Examiner.
Appellant also argues that the number of potential solutions for
addressing cost and efficiency is not finite. Id. at 15—16. We determine that
the Examiner’s reasoning is not based on an “obvious to try” rationale for
which Appellant’s argument would be relevant, but rather is based on a
recognition by one of ordinary skill in the art that some expected beneficial
result would have been produced by combing Hawrysz with the other cited
references. See, e.g., Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v.
11
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Indeed, we have
repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when
a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the
‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references
results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it
is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more
efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—
we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine
prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references
themselves.”). Appellant has not persuasively explained how the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning based on improved efficiency lacks
rational underpinnings. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
of dependent claim 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Trebble,
Bellinger, Agar, and Hawrysz.
Rejection III
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites that cooling stages, either upstream or downstream
from the NGL recovery system, “comprise a first cooling stage able to cool
an initial hydrocarbon stream” and “a separator able to separate the cooled
and partly condensed initial hydrocarbon stream [from the first cooling
stage] to provide the mixed hydrocarbon feed stream and a stabilized
condensate stream.” Br. 26 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Trebble
for the first cooling stage, but turns to Mak for teaching a separator. Final
Act. 8 (citing Mak, Fig. 5, 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Mak’s
12
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
separator with the system of Trebble as already modified by Bellinger and
Agar “so that through the reduction of heavy components in the feed gas[,]
various components of the natural gas plant, such as a turbo expander, can
be operated at their most efficient[,] regardless of changes in feed gas
composition.” Id.
In addition to the same argument we found unpersuasive in
connection with independent claim 1 (Br. 16), Appellant argues that the
articulated reasoning is “too vague” and “it is impossible to determine the
likelihood of success.” Id. at 17. Appellant also argues that there is an
infinite number of ways to improve efficiency, such as “redundancy of
elements, by enhanced design of particular elements, by changes to
throughput,” etc. Id. at 18. Appellant’s general arguments do not
persuasively explain why the Examiner’s stated reasoning lacks rational
underpinnings. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Trebble,
Bellinger, Agar, and Mak.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends directly from independent claim 12, which is
directed to a method of treating a mixed hydrocarbon feed stream. Br. 26—
27 (Claims App.). Claim 16 recites the additional steps of “cooling an initial
hydrocarbon stream to provide a cooled and partly condensed initial
hydrocarbon stream; and separating the cooled and partly condensed initial
hydrocarbon stream to provide the mixed hydrocarbon feed stream and a
stabilized condensate stream.” Id. at 27. The Examiner relies on Trebble for
cooling an initial hydrocarbon stream, but turns to Mak for teaching the step
of separating the cooled and partly condensed initial hydrocarbon stream.
13
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
Final Act. 10 (citing Mak, Fig. 5). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mak’s
teachings with those of Trebble, Bellinger, and Agar “so that through the
reduction of heavy components in the feed gas[,] various components of the
natural gas plant, such as a turbo expander, can be operated at their most
efficient[,] regardless of changes in feed gas composition.” Id. at 10-11.
Appellant relies on the same arguments we found unpersuasive in
connection with dependent claim 6. Br. 22. For the foregoing reasons, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and Mak.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is directed to a method of cooling an initial hydrocarbon
stream. Br. 27—28 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the combination
of Trebble, Bellinger, and Agar (similarly applied as with independent claim
1) to meet most of the claim limitations, except for the separator
“provid[ing] a stabilized condensate stream” when passing the initial
hydrocarbon stream therethrough. Final Act. 12. The Examiner finds that
Mak teaches a feed separator where an inlet stream that has been cooled is
separated into a stabilized component. Id. at 13. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Mak’s teachings with those of Trebble, Bellinger, and Agar “so that through
the reduction of heavy components in the feed gas[,] various components of
the natural gas plant, such as a turbo expander, can be operated at their most
efficient[,] regardless of changes in feed gas composition.” Id.
Appellant relies on the same arguments we found unpersuasive in
connection with independent claim 1. Br. 22—23. For the foregoing reasons,
14
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
we sustain the rejection of independent claim 19 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and Mak.
Rejection IV
Claim 8 recites that the apparatus “further compris[es] a throttle
control valve between the first compressor and the second compressor, to
throttle the pressure between the first compressor and the second
compressor.” Br. 26 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Darredeau
teaches the use of a throttle valve V2 between two compressors 2, 3, and that
“the throttle valve can be used to reduce the pressure and the flow rate
between two compressors or can be left open so that no pressure is reduced.”
Final Act. 9 (citing Darredeau, Fig. 2, || 29—30). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the system of Trebble as already modified by the teachings of Bellinger and
Agar to include “a throttle control valve between the first compressor and
the second compressor, so that the throttle control valve can be used to
reduce the pressure between the compressors.” Id.
In addition to the same argument we found unpersuasive in
connection with independent claim 1 (Br. 18—19), Appellant argues that
“there is no indication that any problem with the pressure between the
compressors of Trebble was known,” such that there is not “sufficient
evidence that it would be obvious to try any modification.” Id. at 19
(emphasis omitted). Appellant maintains that the Examiner’s “proposed
modification to the primary reference would amount to increased complexity
for no apparent reason” in that “[tjhere is no mention in the cited references
of any problem with excessive pressure between the compressors of Trebble,
15
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
nor does the Examiner cite any other reference, information, or evidence that
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such problems.” Id.
Appellant has not persuasively explained why the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning lacks rational underpinnings, considering the
Examiner’s reliance on Darredeau for supporting that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized the benefit of a throttle valve and would have
been led to modify Trebble so as to take advantage of such benefit. For the
foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and
Darredeau.
Rejection V
Claim 9 recites that the apparatus for treating a mixed hydrocarbon
feed stream “further compris[es] a first bypass line around the expander and
a second bypass line around the first compressor.” Br. 26 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Wilding teaches “bypass piping can be used during
startup to bring certain components such as a heat exchanger to ... a steady
state temperature without inducing thermal shock.” Final Act. 9 (citing
Wilding, 7:61—8:2, Fig. 2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Trebble as
already modified by the teachings of Bellinger and Agar to include first and
second bypass lines around the expander and first compressor, respectively,
“so that during startup^] certain components, such as a heat exchanger,
could [be] brought to a steady state temperature without inducing thermal
shock.” Id.
In addition to the same argument we found unpersuasive in
connection with independent claim 1 (Br. 19—20), Appellant argues that
16
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
“there is no indication that any problem with thermal shock in the design of
Trebble was known,” such that there is not “sufficient evidence that it would
be obvious to try any modification.” Id. at 20 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant maintains that the Examiner’s “proposed modification to the
primary reference would amount to increased complexity for no apparent
reason” in that “[tjhere is no mention in the cited references of any problem
with thermal shock in the design of Trebble, nor does the Examiner cite any
other reference, information, or evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize such problem.” Id.
Appellant has not persuasively explained why the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning lacks rational underpinnings, considering the
Examiner’s reliance on Wilding for supporting that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized the benefit of bypass lines around the
expander and compressor and would have been led to modify Trebble so as
to take advantage of such benefit. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 9 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and Wilding.
Rejection VI
Claim 15 depends indirectly from independent claim 12, which is
directed to a method of treating a mixed hydrocarbon feed stream. Br. 26—
27 (Claims App.). When “at least a fraction of the further compressed light
stream is subsequently cooled to provide a cooled hydrocarbon stream” as
recited in claim 14, claim 15 recites that this “subsequent cooling comprises
liquefying, to provide the cooled hydrocarbon stream in the form of
liquefied hydrocarbon stream.” Id. at 27 (Claims App.). The Examiner
finds that “Minta teaches a process of manufacturing pressurized liquid
17
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
natural gas so that it can be transported because if a pipeline is not available
for transporting produced natural gas to a market, produced natural gas is
often processed into liquefied natural gas for transport to market.” Final
Act. 10 (citing Minta, 1:20—25). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of
Trebble as already modified by the teachings of Bellinger and Agar with the
teachings of Minta for the same reason. Id.
In addition to the same argument we found unpersuasive in
connection with independent claim 1 (Br. 21), Appellant argues that “there is
no indication that any problem with pipeline unavailability in the design of
Trebble was known,” such that there is not “sufficient evidence that it would
be obvious to try any modification.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant
maintains that the Examiner’s “proposed modification to the primary
reference would amount to increased complexity for no apparent reason” in
that “[tjhere is no mention in the cited references of any problem with
pipeline availability in the design of Trebble, nor does the Examiner cite any
other reference, information, or evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize such problem.” Id.
Appellant has not persuasively explained why the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning lacks rational underpinnings, considering the
Examiner’s reliance on Minta for supporting that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized the benefit of liquefying a stream and would have
been led to modify Trebble so as to take advantage of such benefit. For the
foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 15 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, and
Minta.
18
Appeal 2015-004023
Application 13/056,161
Rejection VII
Claim 20 depends directly from independent claim 19 and recites that
“the cooling comprises liquefying to provide[] the cooled hydrocarbon
stream in the form of a liquefied hydrocarbon stream.” Br. 28 (Claims
App.). The Examiner finds that “Minta teaches a process of manufacturing
pressurized liquid natural gas so that it can be transported because if a
pipeline is not available for transporting produced natural gas to a market,
produced natural gas is often processed into liquefied natural gas for
transport to market.” Final Act. 14 (citing Minta, 1:20—25). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the method of Trebble as already modified by the teachings of
Bellinger and Agar with the teachings of Minta for the same reason. Id.
Appellant relies on the same arguments we found unpersuasive in
connection with dependent claim 15. Br. 23. For the foregoing reasons, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Trebble, Bellinger, Agar, Mak, and Minta.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—9, 11—16, and 18—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
19