15021630 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2020)

Johnson Matthey Davy Technologies Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 29, 2020

15021630 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 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. 15/021,630 03/11/2016 David WATSON 032891.000207 6617 148994 7590 07/29/2020 BakerHostetler / Johnson Matthey Cira Centre 12th Floor 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891 EXAMINER NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2020 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID WATSON and JOHN SWINNEY Appeal 2019-005916 Application 15/021,630 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, 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, 4–9, 18, and 19. 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 Johnson Matthey Davy Technologies Limited. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005916 Application 15/021,630 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a process for removing methane from a gas feed. Claim 1, reproduced below with the limitation most at issue highlighted, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for removing methane from feed gas having a methane concentration of 2 mole % or less using a system that includes a feed gas line for supplying the feed gas to a heat exchanger, an oxidation reactor that receives feed gas that has been heated by the heat exchanger, and a make-up methane feed line for supplying make-up methane for mixing with the feed gas in the feed gas line, said method comprising the steps of: (a) passing the feed gas through the heat exchanger to raise the temperature of the feed gas to a desired inlet temperature of the oxidation reactor; (b) passing the heated feed gas from step (a) to the oxidation reactor containing an oxidation catalyst, where the methane in the feed gas is oxidised; (c) removing a gas stream including the products of the oxidation reaction from the reactor, said gas stream being at an outlet temperature which is higher than the inlet temperature; (d) passing the gas stream removed in step ( c) through the heat exchanger against the feed gas from step (a) to allow the heat to be recovered from the gas stream removed in step (c) and utilised to heat the feed gas in step (a); and e) comparing the outlet temperature with a pre- determined desired temperature, and, when the outlet temperature falls below the desired temperature, adding make- up methane from the make-up methane feed line to the feed gas in order to increase the methane concentration, such that following the temperature rise occasioned by the reaction, the outlet temperature approaches the desired temperature. Appeal Br. 10. Appeal 2019-005916 Application 15/021,630 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ohtsuka US 2012/0189523 A1 July 26, 2012 Cork US 2012/0263635 A1 Oct. 18, 2012 REJECTION Claims 1, 4–9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka in view of Cork. Final Act. 3. OPINION Appellant’s claims are directed to a method of removing methane found in the gas discharged from the ventilation system of a coal mine. Spec. 1. This gas has a very low concentration of methane and in the past was discharged to the atmosphere. Id. But the methane contributes to global warming, thus, the prior art has developed methods of removing it that use an oxidation reactor containing oxidation catalyst. Ohtsuka ¶¶ 2, 18–23; Cork ¶¶ 1, 8–10. One such method that uses an oxidation reactor is the method of Ohtsuka. Ohtsuka, like Appellant, teaches passing the incoming ventilation gas through a heat exchanger to preheat the inlet gas before passing it to the oxidation reactor and using the reactor outlet gas to do the preheating. Compare Spec. 3, and Fig. 1 (showing line 6 entering oxidation reactor 7 and line 8 with heated oxidized gas passing through heat exchanger 5), with Ohtsuka ¶ 19, and Fig. 2a (showing similar lines between heat exchanger 3 and reactor 2). Appeal 2019-005916 Application 15/021,630 4 But what Ohtsuka does not teach is “comparing the outlet temperature [of the oxidation reactor] with a pre-determined desired temperature, and, when the outlet temperature falls below the desired temperature, adding make-up methane from a make-up methane feed line to the feed gas” so the reactor outlet temperature approaches the desired temperature. Ohtsuka detects methane concentration using detector 4 in the input line and controls the flow of the gas by changing the blowing rate of blower 1 based on the methane concentration. Ohtsuka ¶ 119. Ohtsuka does not compare outlet temperature with a pre-determined desired temperature. Nor does Ohtsuka add methane based on that temperature detection. The Examiner relies on Cork’s teaching of adding higher purity methane to maintain the temperature necessary for oxidation within the reactor when the methane concentration in the feed drops to negligible amounts, but that teaching does not bridge the gap. And the Examiner recognizes as much. Final Act. 5. The Examiner’s rejection is based on the finding that “Ohtsuka establishes that by adjusting the methane concentration in the feed gas, both the inlet temperature and the outlet temperature (i.e., rise in catalyst outlet temperature) can be controlled.” Id. The problem is that although Ohtsuka recognizes the relationship between methane concentration and temperature, Ohtsuka does not teach using temperature detection and comparison with a desired temperature to control temperature. Ohtsuka detects methane concentration and controls temperature based on that detection. Thus, Ohtsuka does not suggest the temperature detection and control of Appellant’s claims. Thus, we agree with Appellant that a preponderance of the evidence and the Examiner’s technical reasoning fails to support a conclusion of obviousness. Appeal 2019-005916 Application 15/021,630 5 Obviousness requires the prior art suggest what Appellant has done. There is no such suggestion here. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4–9, 18, 19 103 Ohtsuka, Cork 1, 4–9, 18, 19 REVERSED