Ian Morris et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 6, 2020

12486627 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 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.
12/486,627 06/17/2009 Ian Morris S0289.0005 5549
95508 7590 02/06/2020
One LLP
4000 MacArthur Blvd.
East Tower, Suite 500
Newport Beach, CA 92660
EXAMINER
KING, BRIAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/06/2020 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):
IPdocketing@onellp.com
PAIRgroup@onellp.com
onellpdocketing@onellp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN MORRIS, BRUCE HALL, TOLU OKIKIOLU, CP
WOODRUFF, and THOMAS RIGOLO
Appeal 2018-005884
Application 12/486,627
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–27. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 SeaOne Holdings,
LLC. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-005884
Application 12/486,627

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a comprehensive system for the
storage and transportation of natural gas in a light hydrocarbon liquid
medium. Claims 1, 2, 11, 14, 15, and 24 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below with certain limitations italicized, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system for processing, storing and transporting natural
gas from supply source to market, comprising
a production barge comprising processing equipment
modules configured to produce a compressed gas liquid (CGL)
product comprising a liquid phase mixture of natural gas and a
hydrocarbon liquid solvent, wherein the hydrocarbon liquid
solvent includes one or more of ethane, propane and butane,
wherein the production barge is moveable between gas supply
locations,
a marine transport vessel comprising a containment
system configured to store the CGL product at storage pressures
and temperatures at selected points in the ranges of -40F to -80F,
and 900 psig to 2150 psig and associated with storage densities
for the natural gas that exceeds the storage densities of
compressed natural gas (CNG) for the same storage pressures
and temperatures, wherein the marine transport vessel is
configured to receive CGL product from the production barge
and load into the containment system, wherein the containment
system comprises tubular containment piping configured in a
looped pipeline containment system with recirculation facilities
to maintain temperatures and pressures at selected points in the
ranges of - 40F to -80F, and 900 psig to 2150 psig, and
an offloading barge comprising separation, fractionation
and offloading equipment modules for separating the CGL
product into its natural gas and solvent constituents and
offloading natural gas to storage or pipeline facilities, wherein
the offloading barge is configured to receive CGL product from
the marine transport vessel and wherein the offloading barge is
moveable between gas market offloading locations,
Appeal 2018-005884
Application 12/486,627

3
wherein the offloading barge is moveable between a gas
market offloading location and the marine transport vessel, and
wherein the production barge is moveable between a gas
supply location and the marine transport vessel.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bishop US 2003/0061820 A1 Apr. 3, 2003
Hubbard US 2006/0010911 A1 Jan. 19, 2006
Hall US 2007/0017575 A1 Jan. 25, 2007
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 11–18, 20, 22, and 24–27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hall and Hubbard. Final Act. 2.
II. Claim 6, 8, 10, 19, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hall, Hubbard, and Bishop. Final Act. 15.
OPINION
Rejection I – Hall and Hubbard
The Examiner finds that Hall discloses a compressed gas liquid (CGL)
transport system having loading/processing, off-loading/separating, and
transport capabilities, including a transport vessel, but does not disclose a
production barge that processes CGL and an offloading barge that separates
CGL, which are movable relative to the transport vessel. Final Act. 3–4.
The Examiner notes that, although the preferred embodiment of Hall
performs the three operations in the same vessel, Hall discloses that “the
process trains can be installed separate from the transport vessel.” Id. at 4
(citing Hall ¶ 10). The Examiner finds that Hubbard discloses a movable
Appeal 2018-005884
Application 12/486,627

4
producing barge and a movable offloading barge with a transport movable
between the barges. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner considers that it would have
been obvious to have CGL production and offloading on movable barges by
combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results. Id.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the combination of references does
not teach or suggest separate, movable barges, because Hall has an integral
system and Hubbard does not use movable barges. Br. 12. Specifically,
Appellant argues that processing, storage and offloading in Hall are all on
the same vessel, and that Hubbard’s vessels operate as a stationary offshore
floating vessel. Br. 11 (citing Hall ¶ 9; Hubbard ¶¶ 47, 63).
The Examiner responds that Hall prefers one ship, but teaches
separating the processing trains from the transport system. Ans. 19 (citing
Hall ¶ 10). Regarding Hubbard, the Examiner states that Hubbard’s “FSRU
(the offloading facility) includes a lightering barge and[,] as such[,] the
system would include offloading means that include an offloading barge
[being] . . . moveable between gas market offloading locations.” Ans. 20
(citing Hubbard ¶ 67). The Examiner thus concludes that, because
“Hubbard teaches a system for processing natural gas that includes
moveable barges as part of the processing equipment,” the combination of
Hall and Hubbard teach movable barges for processing CGL. Ans. 21
Appellant has the better position. The portion of Hall upon which the
Examiner relies for “separate systems” states only that Hall’s method of
storing and transporting natural gas “is not limited to ship installation and is
suited to other forms of transportation with or without the process train
installed on the transport medium.” Hall ¶ 10. Paragraph 2 of Hall discloses
Appeal 2018-005884
Application 12/486,627

5
that “the present invention is particularly applicable to ship or barge
installation for marine transportation and [] on board gas processing, but is
equally applicable to ground modes of transportation such as rail, trucking
and land storage systems for natural gas.” Thus, while Hall discloses
transporting using different types of transportation modes and discloses that
transportation does not need to include processing, Appellant is correct that
Hall does not explicitly suggest a processing vessel separate from the
transport vessel. See Br. 13.
Regarding Hubbard, although Hubbard discloses a floating facility
rather than an on-shore facility, the Examiner has not sufficiently established
that Hubbard’s floating facility is “movable” as claimed. In the Final
Action, the Examiner states that Hubbard discloses a barge, and “[a]s it is a
barge it is moveable between locations.” Final Act. 3. In the Answer, the
Examiner states that Hubbard’s “FSRU (the offloading facility) includes a
lightering barge and as such the system would include offloading means that
include an offloading barge which as a barge would be moveable between
gas market offloading locations.” Ans. 20. However, Hubbard’s disclosure
of a “barge” is with respect to vessels that interact with Floating, Production,
Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO 30), or Floating, Storage and
Regassification Unit (FSRU 50). Specifically, Hubbard discloses that
“FSRU 50 may comprise equipment for side by side and/or tandem mooring
and berthing of LNG transport ships and lightering barges.” Hubbard ¶ 48.
Hubbard also discloses that “FSRU 50 may comprise lightering barge
handling facilities for handing approximately 20,000 m3 capacity, generally
utilizing side by side berthing for loading.” Id. ¶ 56. Hubbard does not
disclose that the lightering barge processes the natural gas. That is, claim 1
Appeal 2018-005884
Application 12/486,627

6
recites “a production barge comprising processing equipment modules
configured to produce a compressed gas liquid (CGL) product … is
moveable.”
In contrast to disclosing a movable facility, Hubbard discloses that
“FSRU 50 will comprise marine systems and utilities as . . . necessary to
operate as a stationary offshore floating vessel.” Hubbard ¶ 47; see also Br.
11. The only disclosed movement in Hubbard is “weather vaning” or
pivoting. Hubbard ¶ 54 (“FSRU 50 will utilize single point mooring to
allow the FSRU to essentially weather vane around the risers.”). This
movement, however, does not qualify as movement “wherein the production
barge is moveable between a gas supply location and the marine transport
vessel,” as required by claim 1. The Examiner’s finding that Hubbard
discloses movable barges for processing and offloading is, therefore, not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Thus, the record as a whole does not support “the legal conclusion
that the invention would have been obvious.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992). For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1. The Examiner relies on the same finding for independent claims 2,
11, 14, 15, and 24. See Final Act. 4–5 and 7–14. For the same reasons, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 11, 14, 15, and 24, and claims 3–5,
7, and 9, which depend from claim 2, claims 12 and 13, which depend from
claim 11, claims 16–18, 20, 22, and 23, which depend from claim 15, and
claims 25–27, which depend from claim 24.
Rejection II – Hall, Hubbard, and Bishop
Rejection II relies on the same proposed combination of Hall and
Hubbard, with additional disclosure of Bishop. The Examiner does not rely
Appeal 2018-005884
Application 12/486,627

7
on the additional disclosure of Bishop in any manner that would remedy the
conclusion set forth in the rejection based on Hall and Hubbard. We do not
sustain Rejection II for the same reasons set forth above.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 9,
11–18, 20,
22, 24–27
103 Hall and Hubbard 1–5, 7, 9,
11–18, 20,
22, 24–27
6, 8, 10, 19,
21, 23
103 Hall, Hubbard, Bishop 6, 8, 10,
19, 21, 23
Overall
Outcome:
1–27

REVERSED