Ex Parte Lloyd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13480783 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
13/480,783 05/25/2012 David Hugh Lloyd TS7616 02 (US) 1009
23632 7590 03/29/2017
SHF! T OH miUPANY EXAMINER
P O BOX 2463 MCAVOY, ELLEN M
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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 DAVID HUGH LLOYD and TREYOR STEPHENSON
Appeal 2015-0077671
Application 13/480,783
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
46—76. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of operating a
compression ignition engine using certain types of diesel fuel compositions
(Spec. 1:3-5).
Claim 46 is illustrative:
46. A method for increasing the rate of acceleration of a
compression ignition engine, the method comprising:
1 This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2010-003038 in application no.
10/738,038.
Appeal 2015-007767
Application 13/480,783
providing a diesel fuel blend comprising (a) diesel fuel
comprising petroleum derived gas oil, the diesel fuel boiling in
the range of from 150 to 400°C and exhibiting a first density at
15°C of from 0.75 to 0.9 g/cm3, and (b) an amount of from
about 1 to 25 vol.% of Fischer-Tropsch derived fuel exhibiting
a second density at 15°C of from 0.76 to 0.79 g/cm3, a majority
of components of the Fischer-Tropsch derived fuel boiling at
from 150 to 400°C, the amount of Fischer-Tropsch derived fuel
being effective to produce the diesel fuel blend exhibiting a
reduced density at 15°C that is from about 0.08% to 1.92% less
than the first density; wherein, under given conditions, the
compression ignition engine burning the diesel fuel accelerates
from a speed of 1350 revolutions per minute (rpm) to a speed of
1500 rpm or more at a first acceleration time that is 0.3 second
or more greater than a reduced acceleration time produced by
the compression ignition engine burning the diesel fuel blend
under the same conditions.
App. Br. 9.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 46—54, and 63—69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Berlowitz ’842 (US 6,180,842 Bl; Jan. 30, 2001).
2. Claims 55—62 and 70-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Berlowitz ’909 (US 6,860,909 B2; Mar. 1, 2005).
Appellants argue independent claims 46 and 63 and independent claims
55 and 70 as two groups (Br. 6—7). Appellants argue broadly the density
decrease recited in dependent claims 47, 48, 56, 57, 64, 65, 71 and 72 (Br.
6-7).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that neither Berlowitz ’909 nor Berlowitz ’842
teaches that the density of both fuel component (a) as between 0.75 to
2
Appeal 2015-007767
Application 13/480,783
0.9g/cm3 and the Fischer-Tropsch derived fuel component (b) specified in
the claims as between 0.76 to 0.79 g/cm3 (Br. 6). Appellants contend that
Berlowitz ’909 and ’842 fail to teach the claimed density reduction of the
resulting blend as compared with the first density (i.e., the density of the
diesel fuel) (Id.).
The Examiner’s findings regarding Berlowitz ’909 and Berlowitz ’842
are located on pages 2 to 7 of the Answer. With respect to the reduction in
density of the Fischer-Tropsch, base oil blend, the Examiner finds that
Berlowitz ’842 and Berlowitz ’909 teach blends that are substantially
identical to the claimed diesel fuel blend (Ans. 6—7). The Examiner finds
that the densities and the reduction in density is based upon the identity of
composition (Ans. 6—7). The Examiner further finds that Berlowitz ’842 and
Berlowitz ’909 teach using Fischer-Tropsch derived fuels in the blend in
amounts with in the claimed range (i.e., 1 to 25%) (Ans. 3, 4). Appellants
do not respond to otherwise show reversible error with the Examiner’s
finding that the fuels used in the blend are identical to the fuels used in the
blend of the claims. Accordingly, when the identical fuels are blended in
amounts as recited in the claims, it is reasonable to find that the reduction in
density as recited in argued independent claims 46, 55, 63 and 70 and
dependent claims 47, 48, 56, 57, 64, 65, 71 and 72 would have resulted. We
are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants additionally argue that the applied prior art is silent
regarding the effect of the composition on acceleration (Br. 8). The
Examiner, however, finds that the identity of fuel composition used in the
diesel fuel would have resulted an acceleration property as recited in the
3
Appeal 2015-007767
Application 13/480,783
claims (Ans. 5). Appellants’ argument fails to address or show reversible
error with the Examiner’s position.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 46—76 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4