FINA TECHNOLOGY, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 1, 2020

14929744 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020)

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.
14/929,744 11/02/2015 James R. Butler COS-1069 CIP DIV 1083
25264 7590 05/01/2020
FINA TECHNOLOGY INC
PO BOX 674412
HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412
EXAMINER
CHONG, JASON Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2020 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):
tammy.brzozowski@total.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES R. BUTLER

Appeal 2019-004677
Application 14/929,744
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8–12, 14–18, 20, 21, and 23–26. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as FINA
TECHNOLOGY, INC. Appeal Brief dated Dec. 21, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) 5.
Appeal 2019-004677
Application 14/929,744

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The present application generally relates to an alkylation system.
Specification filed Nov. 2, 2015 (“Spec.”) ¶ 5. The alkylation system
includes a first (“preliminary”) alkylation system including two alkylation
reactors arranged in parallel. Id. The reactors each include an alkylation
catalyst adapted to contact an aromatic compound and an alkylating agent so
as to alkylate the aromatic compound and form a preliminary output stream.
Id. The preliminary output stream is passed to a primary alkylation system
where it and an alkylating agent are brought into contact with a primary
alkylation catalyst so as to form a primary output stream. Id. ¶ 12.
The catalysts of the system described above require periodic
maintenance. Id. ¶ 4. Such maintenance may require that one of the
alkylation reactors be shut down. Id. ¶¶ 4, 58. While one reactor is “off-
stream,” the other reactor may remain “on-steam.” Id. ¶ 59. During such
periods, the “space velocity”2 of the on-stream reactor is approximately
doubled. Id. The Specification further teaches that, “it is to be noted that
the space velocity depends upon the amount of catalyst poisons in the input
stream.” Id.
Claim 8 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:

2 Space velocity correlates to input feed flow rate. See, e.g., Merrill 13:2–5
(“the feedstream is supplied to each reactor to provide a space velocity of
about 32 hr.-1”).
Appeal 2019-004677
Application 14/929,744

3
8. An alkylation process comprising:
providing an aromatic compound and an alkylating agent in an
input stream;
contacting the aromatic compound and the alkylating agent
with a preliminary alkylation catalyst within a preliminary
alkylation system so as to alkylate the aromatic compound,
reduce alkylation catalyst poisons, and form a preliminary
output stream, wherein the preliminary alkylation system
comprises a first preliminary alkylation reactor and a
second preliminary alkylation reactor connected in parallel
to the first preliminary alkylation reactor, and wherein the
preliminary alkylation system is operated at a temperature of
from about 160°C to about 270°C, wherein the preliminary
alkylation catalyst comprises a cerium promoted zeolite Y
catalyst, and wherein the space velocity of the first
preliminary alkylation reactor and the second preliminary
alkylation reactor is dependent upon a level of catalyst
poisons in the input stream;
passing the preliminary output stream to a primary alkylation
system, wherein the preliminary output stream comprises less
than 100 ppb alkylation catalyst poisons; and
contacting the preliminary output stream and the alkylating
agent with a primary alkylation catalyst disposed therein so as
to form a primary output stream, wherein the preliminary
alkylation system is located upstream of the primary alkylation
system, wherein the preliminary alkylation catalyst and the
primary alkylation catalyst are different from one another.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. 2).

Appeal 2019-004677
Application 14/929,744

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Merrill et al. (“Merrill”) US 6,376,729 B1 Apr. 23, 2002
Butler et al. (“Butler”) US 2007/0161836 A1 July 12, 2007

REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the following rejection:
Claims 8–12, 14–18, 20, 21, and 23–26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Butler and further in view of
Merrill. Final Action dated Aug. 24, 2018 (“Final Act.”) 5–8.

DISCUSSION
In support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that Butler teaches a
process including a preliminary alkylation catalyst step and a primary
alkylation catalyst step. Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds that it is well
known in the art that the presence of catalyst poisons in the input stream
causes coke formation on the catalyst. Id. at 6. The Examiner additionally
finds that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
reduce the flow rate in response to the deactivated catalyst so that such
catalyst could be regenerated. In support of these findings, the Examiner
cites Butler’s teaching that “poisons present in the input stream . . . may
reduce the activity of the alkylation catalyst.” Id. (citing Butler ¶ 40). The
Examiner further relies on Butler’s teaching that the preliminary catalyst
may be deactivated by catalyst poisons requiring regeneration or
replacement of the catalyst. Id. (citing ¶ 45).
Appeal 2019-004677
Application 14/929,744

5
The Examiner additionally finds that Merrill teaches that two or more
alkylation reactors may be arranged in parallel such that one reactor can be
taken off-stream for regeneration of the catalyst while the other remains on-
stream. Id. (citing Merrill col. 8:19–45).
Appellant argues that the rejection is in error in several respects.
Appeal Br. 9–11. First, Appellant argues that the references do not teach
parallel preliminary alkylation reactors. Id. at 9; Reply Brief dated May 29,
2019 (“Reply Br.”) 2–3. Appellant concedes that Butler teaches the use of a
preliminary alkylation reactor and Merrill teaches the use of alkylation
reactors in parallel, but asserts that neither reference individually, nor the
combination thereof, teaches the reactor series of the present invention.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant, however, does not present argument showing any
specific error in the Examiner’s proposed combination. The test for
obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Appellant has not adequately addressed the combination of
references. A mere allegation that the prior art does not teach a given
limitation is insufficient to show error. See 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“the
brief shall contain . . . . The arguments of appellant with respect to each
ground of rejection, and the basis therefor, with citations of the statutes,
regulations, authorities, and parts of the Record relied on. The arguments
shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection
contested by appellant.”); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex
Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[M]ere statements of
Appeal 2019-004677
Application 14/929,744

6
disagreement . . . as to the existence of factual disputes do not amount to a
developed argument.”).
Second, Appellant argues that the references fail to teach “a
dependency of space velocity and the concentration of catalyst poison.”
Appeal Br. 9.
Claim 8 requires a process “wherein the space velocity of the
[preliminary reactors] is dependent upon a level of catalyst poisons in the
input stream.” Appeal Br. (Claims App. 2) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that “the presence of catalyst poisons in the feed
stream affects the space velocity during the process because the catalyst that
is deactivated by the catalyst poisons needs to be regenerated which requires
changes to the space velocities of the two parallel reactors.” Final Act. 2.
The Examiner additionally finds that, where the feed includes a greater
concentration of poisons, “which would require frequent reactor
regeneration, it would be well within the skills of an artisan in the art that the
feed rate could be reduced via process optimizations to operate the process
more efficiently, which would also meet the claimed limitation.” Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously construes the term
“level” to mean absolute amount while it is properly construed to mean
“concentration.” Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant argues that the rejection is in
error because the concentration of poisons in the input feed remains the
same even if one of the preliminary alkylation reactors is off-stream. Appeal
Br. 9–11. Thus, Appellant argues, taking a reactor off-stream, and thereby
changing the space velocity, would not depend upon any change in catalyst
poison concentration (“level”). Id.
Appeal 2019-004677
Application 14/929,744

7
In the Answer, the Examiner determines that the space velocity is
contingent on the concentration of catalyst poisons because the
concentration of poisons affects the frequency with which a reactor will be
taken off-stream. Answer 9–10. Accordingly, the Examiner determines,
even if one adopts Appellant’s preferred construction of “level,” the space
velocity remains dependent upon the level of catalyst poisons. Id.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant argues that “the Examiner appears to
argue that the operator would necessarily act in a particular way, thereby
causing the space velocity to be dependent upon the concentration of catalyst
poisons.” Reply Br. 4. This argument is not persuasive. In the Final
Rejection, the Examiner finds that Butler teaches that a reactor may be taken
off-stream to replace or regenerate a deactivated catalyst. Final Act. 6. That
is, the Examiner finds that Butler teaches that the operator should “act in a
particular way.” Appellant does not directly challenge such finding.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s determination in the Answer rests upon
undisputed findings.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that Appellant has not shown
error with regard to the Examiner’s findings relating to the “space velocity”
limitation.

Appeal 2019-004677
Application 14/929,744

8
CONCLUSION

The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8–12, 14–
18, 20, 21,
23–26
103(a) Butler, Merrill 8–12, 14–
18, 20, 21,
23–26

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