Appeal No. 95-1256
Application No. 08/043,917
1995) arises since this application and Ohura appear to be claiming the same patentable
subject matter. We make the following observations:
With respect to this application, when for example
R’=RfCF2X
Rf=CF2 (see spec., p. 3, lines 30-32)
X=F
R=RfCF2Y
Y=F
Z=F
the reaction of claim 1 of this application [i.e., R’CFZI + H2 = RCFZH] reads
on the following reaction: C3F7I + H2 = C3F7H, at 4000C or less in the absence
of a catalyst.
With respect to Oharu3, the representative claims read:
A method for producing a hydrofluorocarbon of the formula HnRfH
wherein n is 0 or 1, and when n is 0, Rf is a C2-12 linear or branched
polyfluoroalkyl group, and when n is 1, Rf is a C2-12 linear or branched
polyfluoroalkylene group, which comprises reacting an iodofluorocarbon
of the formula InRfI wherein n and Rf are as defined above, with hydrogen
at a temperature of not higher than 4500C. in a gas phase.
The method according to claim 1, wherein the reaction is carried out in the
absence of a catalyst.
When, for example,
3 Note the discussion in Oharu (col. 4, lines 4-56) on conducting the reaction in the
absence of a catalyst. The catalyst, which can be selected from “conventional
hydrogenation catalysts”, is employed as a means of increasing the efficiency of the
reaction. However, when considering other factors, such as the complexity of the
structure of the reactor or post treatment of the waste catalyst, it may be preferable not to
use a catalyst. This is the type of evidence which, if it had been available in the prior art,
would have strengthened examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness over Haszeldine.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007