IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: PTAB’s obviousness finding affirmed in hydrocarbon cracking dispute, (Apr 8, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for using a catalyst to separate oil and gas products and then regenerate the catalyst for further use were obvious because a prior art patent taught all of the disputed claims.

Claims of a patent application relating to a regenerating catalyst system used in oil and gas processing were unpatentable as obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board had properly interpreted the teachings of the prior art (In re Li, No. 24-1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2025)).

Li Li and Qunzhu Li (collectively, Li) were the applicants on U.S. Patent Application No. 13/576,565, which claimed a system for using a catalyst in the separation of oil and gas products, the regeneration of that catalyst, and the further use of that catalyst, including as coolant for the process as a whole. The patent examiner rejected all claims as obvious, primarily based on a prior art Chinese patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the rejection, and Li appealed once again.

Teachings of the prior art. Li argued that the Board erred in finding that the prior art Chinese patent, which was also directed to using a catalyst in oil and gas processing, disclosed a regenerated catalyst cooler, a catalyst mixing buffer space, and controlling the temperature in the reaction zone. The court reviewed the language of the prior art reference and found that the plain language alone was sufficient to support the determinations by the patent examiner and the Board that the patent disclosed these items.

Objective indicia of non-obviousness. Li argued that the Board erred in disregarding their voluminous evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but unmet need, or industry praise. The court found that the Board was justified in finding that there was no nexus between this evidence and the claimed invention because it had already found that the claimed invention was known in the prior art through the prior art patent already discussed. This evidence therefore related to other, unclaimed elements of the products which had received such praise and success.

The court affirmed the Board’s rejection as to each of the claims.

The Case is No. 24-1209.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Li Li, pro se. Quenzhu Li, Pro se. Justin Bova, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for the Coke Morgan Stewart.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews USPTO