Ex parte VEDAGE - Page 2


                 Appeal No. 95-2835                                                                                                                     
                 Application 08/127,659                                                                                                                 



                          The appealed claims as represented by claim 12 are drawn to improved processes for the                                        
                 catalytic hydrogenation of a meta-toluenediamine or mixtures of meta- toluenediamine wherein the                                       
                 improvement comprises the use of at least a catalyst comprising at least rhodium carried on a support                                  
                 and of a secondary C3-C10 alcohol.  According to appellant, the use of the supported rhodium                                           
                 hydrogenation catalyst and a secondary C3-C10 alcohol per se enhances the reaction rate and yield at                                   
                 moderate pressures and extends catalyst life and activity without the necessity to remove o-                                           
                 toluenediamine impurities from the meta-toluenediamine feed (specification, e.g., page 3, lines 5-11).                                 
                          The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                                 
                 Cross                                                 3,445,516                                    May 20, 1969                        
                 Chung et al. (Chung)                                  3,856,862                                    Dec. 24, 1974                       
                 Massie                                                3,914,307                                    Oct.  21, 1975                      
                 Whitman                                               5,214,212                                    May 25, 1993                        
                          The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                         
                 unpatentable over Whitman, and as being unpatentable over Whitman in view of Chung, Massie and                                         
                 Cross.  We affirm.                                                                                                                     
                          Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellant, we refer                               
                 to the examiner’s answer and to appellant’s brief for a complete exposition thereof.                                                   
                                                                       Opinion                                                                          
                          We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in                                      
                 agreement with the examiner that the claimed improved process encompassed by appealed claims 1 and                                     
                 7 through 9 would have been obvious over the teachings of Whitman and over the combined teachings                                      
                 of Whitman, Chung, Massie and Cross to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed                                       
                 invention was made.                                                                                                                    


                                                                                                                                                       
                 2  Appellant states in his brief (page 2) that “[c]laims 1-6 are to be considered as one group and                                     
                 [c]laims 7-10 as a second group.” Appellant has separately argued appealed claims 1 and 7 through 9                                    
                 in his brief. Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1 and 7 through 9. 37 CFR §                                         
                 1.192(c)(5) and (6)(1993).                                                                                                             

                                                                         - 2 -                                                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007