Ex Parte Kevenaar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2017

12296587 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2017)

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.
12/296,587 10/09/2008 Mark Antonius Kevenaar TS8629US 9678
23632 7590 05/15/2017
SHF! T OH miUPANY EXAMINER
P O BOX 2463 CRENSHAW, HENRY T
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2017 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK ANTONIUS KEVENAAR and
CHUN KIT POH
Appeal 2014-004936
Application 12/296,587
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark Antonius Kevenaar and Chun Kit Poh (“Appellants”) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—
14 and 16-21.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Shell Oil Company. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-004936
Application 12/296,587
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the only independent claim, is reproduced below:
1. A method of liquefying a hydrocarbon stream, the method at
least comprising the steps of:
(a) supplying a partly condensed hydrocarbon feed stream
to a first gas/liquid separator;
(b) separating the feed stream in the first gas/liquid
separator into a gaseous stream and a liquid stream;
(c) expanding the gaseous stream obtained in step (b)
thereby obtaining an expanded stream and feeding said expanded
stream into a second gas/liquid separator at a first feeding point;
(d) feeding the liquid stream obtained in step (b) into the
second gas/liquid separator at a second feeding point;
(e) removing from the bottom of the second gas/liquid
separator a liquid stream and feeding said liquid stream into a
fractionation column;
(f) removing from the top of the second gas/liquid
separator a gaseous stream and passing the gaseous stream to a
compressor thereby obtaining a compressed stream having a
pressure above 50 bar;
(g) cooling the compressed stream obtained in step (f)
thereby obtaining a cooled compressed stream;
(h) further cooling the cooled compressed stream by heat
exchanging the cooled compressed stream obtained in step (g)
against a stream being downstream of the first gas/liquid
separator and upstream of the fractionation column; and
(i) liquefying the cooled compressed stream, after heat
exchanging in step (h), thereby obtaining a liquefied stream.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wilkinson (US 2005/0247078 Al, published Nov.
10, 2005), Foglietta (US 2005/0204774 Al, published Sept. 22, 2005),
and Paradowski (US 2004/0244415 Al, published Dec. 9, 2004).
2
Appeal 2014-004936
Application 12/296,587
2) Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wilkinson, Foglietta, Paradowski, and Campbell (US 6,526,777
Bl, issued Mar. 4, 2003).
3) Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wilkinson, Foglietta, Paradowski, Campbell, and Lavin (US
5,146,756, issued Sept. 15, 1992).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The dispute in this appeal centers on step (h) of claim 1. The
Examiner acknowledges that Wilkinson does not explicitly disclose step (h).
Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Wilkinson teaches that “a stream
downstream of the first separator and upstream of the fractionation column
is available for cooling purposes.” Id. (citing Wilkinson 117). The
Examiner also finds Wilkinson teaches that “different approaches can be
used for liquefying the top stream from the second separator, depending on
various factors.” Id. at 3^4 (citing Wilkinson 142). The Examiner finds
that Foglietta discloses a system where stream 40 from the top of a second
separator is cooled in heat exchanger 38 by a stream 42/44, which is
downstream of a first separator and upstream of a fractionation column. Id.
at 4 (citing Foglietta 138). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious, in view of Foglietta, “to modify Wilkinson to take the
compressed/cooled stream (49b-49c), and route leg (49c) through HX (13)
for cooling against stream (40-40a) and to HX (60) [so] that this cooling step
can reduce cooling/liquefaction demands further downstream.” Id. at 4—5.
3
Appeal 2014-004936
Application 12/296,587
Appellants contend that it would not have been obvious to route
Wilkinson’s leg 49c through heat exchanger 13 for cooling against stream
40-40a as proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 5. In support of this
contention, Appellants argue that Wilkinson’s stream 49c is disclosed as
having a temperature of -93°F, while stream 40-40a is warmed from -79°F
to -20°F in heat exchanger 14. Id. (citing Wilkinson || 22, 23). Appellants
argue that the relative temperatures of each of the two streams means that
stream 40-40a would “warm stream 49c in direct contradiction with the
asserted purpose of ‘reducing] cooling/liquefaction demands.’” Id.
In response, the Examiner does not dispute “[Appellants’ assertion
about the respective temperatures” of streams 49c and 40-40a, but maintains
that it would have been obvious to cool stream 49 in heat exchanger 13
against stream 40-40a. Ans. 12. The Examiner then proposes further
modifying Wilkinson by routing leg 49b, rather than leg 49c, to heat
exchanger 13. Id. The Examiner asserts that this modification would reduce
the cooling loads on heat exchangers 24 and 60. Id. For the following
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Wilkinson discloses that stream 49c exits heat exchanger 24 at a
temperature of -93°F. Wilkinson 123, Fig. 3. Liquid distillation stream 40
enters heat exchanger 13 at a temperature of -79°F and exits heat exchanger
13 at a temperature of -20°F. Id. 122. Thus, even if it would have been
obvious, based on Foglietta, to route stream 49c through heat exchanger 13
as proposed in the Non-Final Action, a preponderance of evidence does not
support a finding that stream 49c is “further cool[ed]. . . against a stream
being downstream of the first gas/liquid separator and upstream of the
fractionation column,” as recited in claim 1, step (h).
4
Appeal 2014-004936
Application 12/296,587
We are also not persuaded that the Examiner’s further modification of
Wilkinson in the Answer would have been an obvious modification
supported by a rational underpinning for the following reasons. Wilkinson
discloses that stream 47 is “warmed to 94°F ... in heat exchanger 24, and a
portion (stream 48) is then withdrawn to serve as fuel gas for the plant.” Id.
123. As shown in Wilkinson’s Figure 3, stream 49b warms stream 47 in
heat exchanger 24. Id. at Fig. 3. The Examiner does not address how stream
47 would be warmed to produce fuel gas for the plant if stream 49b were
rerouted from heat exchanger 24 to heat exchanger 13. See Ans. 12—13.
We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 because the Examiner has
not provided an adequate reason supported by a rational underpinning for
modifying Wilkinson with Foglietta as set forth in the Answer. Claims 2, 4,
13, 14, and 17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appeal Br. 11—12
(Claims App.). We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 13, 14, and 17
for the same reasons as for claim 1.
Rejections 2 and 3
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 21 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 11—12 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects these claims based
on various combinations of Wilkinson, Foglietta, and Paradowski with
additional disclosure from Campbell and Favin. Non-Final Act. 8—10. The
Examiner does not rely on the additional disclosures in Campbell or Favin to
cure the deficiencies in the combination of Wilkinson, Foglietta, and
Paradowski stated above in connection with claim 1. Id. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 5, 6, 19, and 21 for the same reasons
stated above in connection with claim 1.
5
Appeal 2014-004936
Application 12/296,587
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14 and 16—21 is reversed.
REVERSED
6