Appeal No. 95-0262
Application 07/924,606
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the above references.
We reverse.
The examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness is predicated
on the contention that it would have been obvious to substitute
tetralin for the organic solvents, particularly cyclohexane,
utilized in the process of Herrmann, which process, according to
the examiner, corresponds identically to the claimed process with
the exception of the requirement regarding tetralin. In support
of his conclusion, the examiner further states that cyclohexane
and tetralin are taught to be interchangeable as reducing agents
in an “analogous” process described in Wollensak and are
therefore expected to be equally useful in the catalytic
hydrogenation of nitrobenzene, “which in turn has shown to be
promoted by the employment of a reducing agent” as described in
Mestroni. See the examiner’s answer at page 5.
Although the examiner’s rejection is not without merit, we
agree with appellant that a prima facie case of obviousness has
not been established for the claimed process herein. That
Wollensak discloses the use of reducing solvents such as
cyclohexane and tetralin for the reduction of an hydroxy aromatic
material to its corresponding cyclohexanone does not, by itself,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007