Ex Parte WU

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

12617451 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/617,451 11112/2009
37814 7590 08/04/2016
CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
PLANO, TX 75024
An-Hsiang WU
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.
210635US01 (4081-09904) 4603
EXAMINER
SMITH, JENNIFER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1731
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2016 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
Exparte AN-HSIANG WU
Appeal2014-005261
Application 12/617,451
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005261
Application 12/617,451
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision2
finally rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1---6, 9-16, and 19-23 as
unpatentable over Murakawa et al. (US Patent No. 5, 196,631, iss. Mar. 23, 1993
("Murakawa")) in view ofHoltermann et al. (US Patent No. 6, 190,539 Bl, iss.
Feb. 20, 2001 ("Holtermann")) and further in view of Hayes (US
Patent No. 3,898,173, iss. Aug. 5, 1975); and (2) claims 17 and 18 as unpatentable
over the same references, further in view of Haddad et al. (U.S. Patent No.
4,721,607, iss. Jan. 26, 1988 ("Haddad")). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The invention "relates to methods of preparing an aromatization catalyst"
(Spec. 3 ,-r 2), e.g., a catalyst used to convert hydrocarbons into aromatic compounds
(id. ,-r 8). In particular, the invention is concerned with preparing "fresh catalysts
which retain their conversion rates and/or selectivity while under aromatization
conditions." Id. ,-r 4. The Specification defines "fresh catalyst" as a catalyst that
has not been used previously to catalyze a process. Id. ,-r 8. The Specification
describes preparing catalysts comprising a catalyst support, one or more
catalytically active metals, and at least two halides. Id. ,-r 10. The catalyst support
may be an L-type zeolite. Id. i-f 13. A metal such as platinum is added via
impregnation with a solution of a Pt-containing compound. Id. ,-r 17. Suitable
halides include chloride and fluoride. Id. ,-r 19.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Chevron Phillips Chemical
Company LP. Appeal Brief filed December 2, 2013 ("App. Br."), 3.
2 Final Office Action mailed July 2, 2013 ("Final Act."), 2-9.
3 Specification filed Nov. 12, 2009.
2
Appeal2014-005261
Application 12/617,451
"[C]hloride may be added to the catalyst by contacting the catalyst with a
dispersing composition containing a chlorine-containing compound in the presence
of oxygen." Id. In an alternative embodiment, the dispersing composition further
comprises water. Id. i-f 33. "The chlorine-containing compound may be in the solid
phase, liquid phase, gas phase, or combinations thereof." Id. i-f 19. The dispersing
composition, when contacted with the metal (e.g., Pt) in the catalyst support,
disperses the metal throughout the support to form an impregnated dispersed
catalyst. Id. ,-r 28.
"Fluoride may be added to the catalyst by any suitable method, such as via
contacting the catalyst with a fluorine-containing compound in a process generally
referred to as fluoridation. The fluorine-containing compound may be in the solid
phase, liquid phase, gas phase, or combinations thereof." Id. i-f 23. The fluorine-
containing compound may serve as an activating composition which, when
contacted with the impregnated dispersed catalyst produces an impregnated
dispersed activated catalyst. Id. i-f 35. The impregnated dispersed activated
catalyst is thermally treated by heating "at a temperature range of equal to or less
than about 1000 °C." Id. i-f 36.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of preparing a fresh catalyst comprising:
impregnating a metal to a catalyst support to produce an
impregnated catalyst;
dispersing the metal in the impregnated catalyst to produce an
impregnated dispersed catalyst, wherein dispersing the metal in the
impregnated catalyst comprises contacting the impregnated catalyst
with a dispersing composition comprising oxygen and a chlorine-
containing compound;
3
Appeal2014-005261
Application 12/617,451
contacting the impregnated dispersed catalyst with an activating
composition to produce an impregnated dispersed activated catalyst
wherein the activating composition is in the gas phase; and
thermally treating the impregnated dispersed activated catalyst
to produce the fresh catalyst.
App. Br. 20 (Claims Appendix) (paragraphing added).
Appellants state that dependent claims 2---6 and 9-23 stand or fall with claim
1. App. Br. 5, 18.
The Examiner finds Murakawa discloses methods for preparing a fresh
catalyst including steps of"[ s ]upporting platinum [metal] on a zeolite [catalyst
support] via methods such as vacuum impregnation or atmospheric impregnation,"
treating with a halogen-containing compound that may be present in gaseous form
and is preferably a fluorine-containing and chlorine-containing compound, and
thermally treating the supported zeolite catalyst at temperatures ranging from 80°C
to 600°C. Ans. 2 (citing Murakawa 3:2-15, 38--46). The Examiner finds
Murakawa "fails to teach the separate and sequential steps of dispersing [i.e.
contacting with a dispersing composition] and contacting with an activating
composition." Id. at 3.
With respect to the separate additions of two halogen-containing
compositions, the Examiner finds Holtermann, directed to methods for the
preparation of catalysts, discloses that halogens such as chloride and fluoride can
be added separately and sequentially, following Pt impregnation. Ans. 3--4 (citing
Holtermann 14:36-39, 60---61). The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art,
at the time of the invention, would have been motivated to treat Murakawa' s
impregnated catalyst with halides in separate and sequential steps, as a dispersing
composition and an activating composition, based on catalyst conditions. Id. at 3.
The Examiner further finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
4
Appeal2014-005261
Application 12/617,451
reasonable expectation in choosing these operating conditions based on
Holtermann's teaching that "the preferred amount of halide, e.g. chloride and/or
fluoride, in the calcined catalyst depends on the type of zeolite, the catalytic metal
and its loading, and the type of hydrocarbon conversion" (Holtermann 14:42--47).
Ans. 3--4.
The Examiner finds Murakawa and Holtermann, alone or in combination, do
not teach adding a chlorine-containing composition as a dispersing composition
that further comprises oxygen (claim 1) and water (claim 23). Ans. 4.
The Examiner finds Hayes teaches methods for forming a fresh catalyst
composition using a halogen treatment performed with a liquid phase halogenating
agent (i.e., a dispersing composition) such as a chlorine containing compound and
water. Ans. 4 (citing Hayes 4:30-35, 9:15-20). The Examiner further finds Hayes
teaches that "[t]he halogen may be added to the carrier material in any suitable
manner" (Hayes 9: 15-17). Ans. 4. Based on these findings, the Examiner
maintains "[ o ]ne of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of
success in utilizing an aqueous liquid phase halogenation agent like those taught by
Hayes in place of the gaseous halogenating agent of Murakawa because the
determination of liquid or gaseous phase reactions is routinely practiced in the art."
Id. The Examiner further finds that because oxygen dissolves freely in water,
Hayes' s liquid phase halogen solution necessarily would contain some amount of
dissolved oxygen. Id.
Appellants argue that although Hayes teaches the halogen may be added to
the carrier material in any suitable manner, the Examiner failed to identify
evidence to support a finding that an aqueous liquid phase halogenation agent
would be a suitable replacement for the gaseous halogenating agent as used in
Murakawa's method. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants argue Hayes utilizes an aqueous
5
Appeal2014-005261
Application 12/617,451
liquid phase halogenating agent prior to and during impregnation, but fails to
disclose or suggest the suitability of using an aqueous liquid phase halogenating
agent after the carrier material has been impregnated, i.e., the stage at which
Murakawa adds a gaseous halogenating agent. Id. at 10-11. Appellants further
contend Hayes teaches away from the use of an aqueous liquid phase halogenating
agent after the step of impregnating the carrier material, because Hayes teaches a
drying step immediately following impregnation and "one of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize the impracticality and futility of subjecting the catalyst
composition to a drying step were the catalyst composition to be thereafter
contacted with an aqueous liquid phase halogenating agent, instead of a gaseous
phase halogenating agent." Id. at 12-13. Appellants also argue one of skill in the
art would appreciate that Murakawa uses a nitrogen atmosphere at high
temperatures for the purpose of ensuring the absence of oxygen during the halogen
treatment step, and, therefore, including oxygen in Murakawa's halogen treatment
step would render Murakawa's method unsatisfactory. Id. at 15.
We have fully considered the arguments advanced by Appellants in the
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief (filed March 13, 2014 ("Reply Br.")), but do not find
them persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness
for the reasons explained by the Examiner in the Response to Argument section of
the Answer. Ans. 8-12. We add the following.
In their Reply Brief, Appellants argue that even assuming the Examiner is
correct in finding "the determination of liquid or gaseous phase is routinely
practiced in the art" (Reply Br. 14--15 (quoting Ans. 11)), the Examiner has not
shown the skilled artisan would have understood that "a gaseous halogenating
agent and an aqueous liquid phase halogenating agent are likewise
interchangeable" (id. at 15). Appellants' argument fails to appreciate that claim 1,
6
Appeal2014-005261
Application 12/617,451
as drafted, does not preclude an overlap in performance of the recited steps, i.e.,
the claims do not require completion of the impregnating step prior to commencing
the dispersing step. Thus, the claims read on a method that uses an aqueous
solution containing a Pt compound for impregnating a carrier material and adds to
that aqueous solution a chloride-containing compound for dispersing the Pt
component, as described in Hayes. See Hayes 8:52-9:3. As noted by the
Examiner (Ans. 11), Murakawa teaches that "[r]eaction conditions for treatment
. with the halogen-containing compound are not restricted to particular ones and
may be selected in accordance with situations" (Murakawa 3:34--37). Murakawa
clearly indicates the halogen-containing compound used to treat the impregnated
catalyst need not be in a gaseous form. Id. at 3:42--43 ("lfthe halogen-containing
compound is used in a gaseous form ... "(emphasis added)). Moreover,
Appellants' continued assertions that Murakawa requires an absence of oxygen
during the halogen treatment step, are not persuasive because Appellants rely
solely on attorney argument. App. Br. 14--17; Reply Br. 16-17. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that argument by counsel cannot
take the place of evidence). Although nitrogen is used prior to halogen treatment
in Murakawa's examples, Murakawa's disclosure is devoid of any statements that
the use of nitrogen is required or even preferred. See, e.g., Murakawa 3:34--46
(wherein nitrogen is not mentioned in the description of reaction conditions for
halogenation treatment). Further, Murakawa's examples utilize a gaseous form of
the halogen-containing compound. See id.at 4:54--5:49. Appellants have not
argued persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
an oxygen-free environment was necessary in Murakawa's method as modified by
the secondary references to add chlorine and fluorine in two separate steps, and to
use an aqueous liquid phase chlorine-containing compound to form an impregnated
7
Appeal2014-005261
Application 12/617,451
dispersed activated catalyst. Appellants' argument that the ordinary artisan would
have understood the purpose of Murakawa's nitrogen atmosphere was to ensure the
absence of oxygen during the halogen treatment (App. Br. 15) is contradicted by
Appellants' use of either oxygen, nitrogen, or a combination thereof prior to
treatment with the dispersing composition. See Spec. i-fi-129, 31-33 (describing
drying the impregnated catalyst under stationary or flowing gases such as oxygen
and/or nitrogen for a period of I minute to 100 hours and then treating with a
chlorine-containing compound and oxygen in the presence of water); cf id. i136
("[T]he activating may be carried out in a flowing gas comprising nitrogen and/or
oxygen, air, nitrogen diluted air, or combinations thereof'). Likewise, Appellants'
argument that the ordinary artisan would view as impractical the use of an aqueous
liquid phase halogenating agent after Murakawa's step of drying the catalyst
composition is contradicted by Appellants' disclosure of using a drying step prior
to treatment with the aqueous dispersing composition. See id. i131 ("After
impregnation, the catalyst support impregnated with the metal-containing
compound may be dried.").
In sum, for the reasons stated in the Answer and above, we are not
convinced of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness and, therefore,
affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6 and 9-23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8