Appeal No. 95-2958
Application 08/108,570
that hexachlorobutadiene would not react with the hydrogen
fluoride in the presence of a catalyst as required by
appellants’ claims.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of
appellants’ claimed invention over Bielefeldt.
Minklei discloses a method which “comprises contacting a
vapor phase mixture of hexachlorobutadiene, chlorine and
hydrogen fluoride with a fluorinated alumina catalyst at a
temperature of between about 300E and about 550EC and
recovering 2,3-dichlorohexafluorobutene-2” (col. 1, lines 27-
31). Thus, Minklei’s reaction is in the gas phase, but the
product produced is not among those recited in appellants’
claims.
The examiner argues that because Minklei’s method differs
from that of appellants only in the product made, the method
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art (answer, page 5). The examiner reached his
conclusion of obviousness of appellants’ claimed invention
based on a per se rule that making a new product by a prior
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007