Ex Parte Wiindaarden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2013

12322524 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

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.
12/322,524 02/03/2009 Wim Van Wiindaarden 09/108DIV 6701
7590 06/03/2013
LEON D. ROSEN
FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN
Suite 1220
10960 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
EXAMINER
PETTITT, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2013 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 WIM VAN WIINDAARDEN and MATTHIEU UBAS
____________

Appeal 2011-004554
Application 12/322,524
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004554
Application 12/322,524

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 14-16, 18 and 20. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 14, a method for transferring and heating liquefied natural gas
(LNG) that has been transported on the sea in a tanker, and claim 18, an
apparatus to unload LNG from a tanker, are independent claims.
Independent claims 14 and 18 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal,
and are reproduced below:
14. A method for transferring and heating LNG
(liquefied natural gas) that has been transported on the sea in a
tanker (38, Fig. 8), comprising:
establishing a jetty (40) fixed in the sea away from a
shore;
mooring a floating offloading structure (74) that has
tanks (76) for holding LNG, beside said jetty;
establishing an LNG vaporizing system (32) that heats
LNG to convert it to gaseous hydrocarbons;
mooring said tanker to a location adjacent to said
offloading structure on a side of said offloading structure
opposite said jetty, and transferring LNG through a LNG
loading arm (30) directly from said tanker to said tanks (76) on
said offloading structure;
transferring LNG through a conduit from said offloading
structure to said LNG vaporizing system (32);
said step of establishing said LNG vaporizing system,
includes establishing it on a side of said jetty that is opposite to
said tanker.

18. Apparatus for use with a tanker (78) that has
transported LNG (liquefied natural gas) across a sea, to moor
Appeal 2011-004554
Application 12/322,524

3
the tanker, unload its LNG, and heat the LNG so it can be
stored and/or distributed, comprising:
a floating structure (74) that floats in a sea and is moored
to a fixed jetty (40), said floating structure having LNG tanks
(76) and constructed to moor said tanker alongside the floating
structure with said tanker on a side of said floating structure
that is opposite said jetty;
a hose (30) which unloads LNG directly from said tanker
to said LNG tanks (76) of said floating structure;
a vaporizing system (32) which heats LNG to produce
hydrocarbons in a gaseous state;
said vaporizing system being spaced from both said
floating structure and said tanker.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art references:

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 14, 16, 18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goldbach and Smith; and
2. Claims 14-16, 18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Frimm, and Sheehan.

Smith US 355,480 Jan. 4, 1887
Sheehan US 3,033,151 May 8, 1962
Frimm US 6,546,739 B2 Apr. 15, 2003
Goldbach US 6,805,598 B2 Oct. 19, 2004
Appeal 2011-004554
Application 12/322,524

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
Relevant to the issues raised by Appellants in this appeal, the
Examiner found that Goldbach discloses the basic elements and steps called
for in claims 14, 16, 18, and 20. Ans. 4. The Examiner acknowledged that
Goldbach does not explicitly teach that: (1) the claimed “offloading
structure” (i.e., a barge) is moored beside a fixed jetty or dock; and (2) the
vaporization equipment is established “on the shore opposite the tanker.” Id.
The Examiner also found, however, that Smith discloses that it is “old and
well known in the art” to provide goods to a dock or jetty and to provide a
temporary floating storage facility (i.e., a barge) between the dock and a
transport vessel. Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Goldbach by mooring the transfer station beside a dock and to locate the
regasification equipment “on the shore, while the transfer station is docked.”
Id. at 4-5 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s reasoned rationale for the
proposed modifications is to allow tankers to deliver LNG more directly and
more economically, and to facilitate maintenance on the regasification
equipment, respectively. Id. at 5-6.
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding the applied
references, asserting that none of the references disclose a jetty that lies
away from shore, as called for in claim 14. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2.
Appellants further argue that the applied references, when combined, would
not result in a vaporizing system spaced from both the tanker and the
floating structure, as called for in claim 18. App. Br. 6.
Appeal 2011-004554
Application 12/322,524

5
We agree with Appellants. The above-referenced findings are not
supported by the cited references, and thus there is insufficient factual basis
for the Examiner’s conclusion that the inventions recited in independent
claims 14 and 18 would have been obvious in view of Goldbach and Smith.
Claim 14 calls for “establishing a jetty (40) fixed in the sea away from
a shore.” As the Examiner acknowledges (Ans. 4), Goldbach does not
teach mooring the offloading structure beside a fixed jetty. Smith discloses
a wharf, Fig. 1, but does not disclose establishing a jetty “at sea away from a
shore.” As such, the Examiner has failed to establish that the combination of
Goldbach and Smith would render obvious all the steps of claim 14.
Claim 18 recites that the vaporizing system is “spaced from both said
floating structure and said tanker.” While Goldbach discloses that the
optional regasification unit can be positioned at various positions, the only
place that Goldbach discloses for the optional regasification unit 44 is on the
bow section of the floating LNG transfer facility, or offloading structure.
Goldbach, 7:37-40. As the Examiner notes, Goldbach states that the
“liquefaction and regasification units can be provided where and to the
extent needed for the tasks a particular embodiment of the transfer station is
designed to carry out.” Id. at 7:32-36. However, the flexible positioning is
on the transfer station based on a specific embodiment of the transfer station.
There is no disclosure or suggestion in Goldbach to locate the LNG
vaporizing system spaced from the transfer station. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 14, 16, 18, or 20 based on Goldbach and
Smith. 1

1 In the Answer, pages 7-8, the Examiner reinstated the rejection of claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldbach and Smith.
Appeal 2011-004554
Application 12/322,524

6
Rejection 2
The Examiner found that:
Smith discloses the basic ship/barge/jetty system called for in the
claims, but acknowledged that Smith does not disclose that the product is
LNG and that the LNG is transferred from the tanker to the offloading
structure and to a vaporizer on the shore (Ans. 6); and
Frimm discloses transport of LNG by transport vessel and
vaporization of LNG on shore (Id.).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify Smith to deliver LNG from a transport vessel to an
offloading structure and then to a vaporizer on shore. Ans. 6. The reasoned
rationale for the proposed modification is that it would deliver LNG more
directly and more economically than pipeline delivery. Id.
Claims 14-16
Claim 14, in relevant part, calls for a jetty “fixed in the sea away from
a shore.” As discussed supra, we find that Smith does not disclose a jetty
fixed in the sea away from a shore, as called for in claim 14.
Frimm, in Figure 1 specifically relied on by the Examiner, discloses a
prior art system of an “onshore terminal” for an “onshore LNG
regasification terminal.” Frimm, 2:48-50. As such, the jetty 1 of Figure 1 of
Frimm is not “fixed in the sea away from a shore.” Accordingly the

Appellants did not argue this ground of rejection in their Appeal Brief or
Reply Brief. However, the rejection of claim 15, dependent on claim 14,
also falls with our reversal of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 14.
Appeal 2011-004554
Application 12/322,524

7
Examiner has failed to establish that the combination of Smith, Frimm, and
Sheehan2, would render obvious all the steps of claim 14
Claims 18, 20
Claim 18 calls for the vaporizing system to be spaced from both the
floating structure and the tanker, with the floating structure moored to a
fixed jetty. Appellants acknowledge that claim 18 does not call for the jetty
lying away from shore. Reply Br. 3. Appellants point to Figure 4 of Frimm
and argue that Frimm locates the regasification unit 33 on the vessel that is
moored to two tankers 42, 43 rather than mooring his tanker to a side of a
jetty opposite an offloading structure (and therefore opposite the tanker).
App. Br. 6.
The problem with Appellants’ argument is that it is not responsive to
the rejection, which relied on the prior art Figure 1 of Frimm to show that it
was known in the art to place the vaporizing system on shore and thus
spaced from a floating structure and a tanker. Ans. 6. The Examiner
describes the vaporizers (reference numeral 3) in Figure 1 of Frimm as being
“on shore” or “land based.” Ans. 6, 15. This description by the Examiner is
consistent with the Frimm disclosure. As found by the Examiner, Figure 1
of Frimm, combined with Smith as proposed by the Examiner, discloses the
vaporization system (reference numeral 3 in Frimm) spaced from both the
tanker and the offloading structure (ship B in Smith).
Claim 20 depends from claim 18 and recites that “said LNG vaporizer
system lies on a side of said floating structure that is opposite said tanker.”
Regarding claim 20, Appellants argue that Frimm discloses “a vaporizer (33,

2 The Examiner relied on Sheehan only to teach it is well known in the art to
place bumpers between the offloading structure and the tanker. Ans. 7.
Appeal 2011-004554
Application 12/322,524

8
his Fig. 4) on a vessel (31) that lies against two tankers (42, 43).” App.
Br. 6. However, this argument fails to address the Examiner’s specific
citation and reliance on the prior art system shown in Figure 1 of Frimm.
Accordingly, Appellants’ evidence and arguments do not apprise us of any
error in the rejection of claims 18 and 20 based on Smith, Frimm, and
Sheehan.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’
contentions and the preponderance of relevant evidence: we reverse the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14-16, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldbach and Smith; we reverse the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Frimm, and Sheehan; and we affirm the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Frimm, and Sheehan.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh