Appeal No. 1997-1959
Application 08/351,908
hexafluoropropane (CF3CH2CF3) and/or 2-chloro-2-hydrohexafluoropropane (CF3CHClCF3).2 See
Dow Chem., 837 F.2d at 473, 5 USPQ2d at 1531-32; cf. In re Brouwer, 77 F.3d 422, 425-26,
37 USPQ2d 1663, 1665-66 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we find that, prima facie, one of ordinary
skill in this art following the combined teachings of the references with respect to hydrodechlorination
processes would have arrived at the claimed process which uses palladium supported on aluminum
fluoride or fluorinated alumina as the hydrodechlorination catalyst as encompassed by appealed claim 1.
With respect to appealed claim 8, we find that, prima facie, one of ordinary skill in this art following the
combined teachings of Kellner I (e.g., col. 2) and Smith (e.g., cols. 1-3) would have optimized such
known hydrodechlorination process result effective variables as concentration of palladium in the
catalyst, fluorine content of the catalyst support, temperature and hydrogen feed by routine
experimentation in order to optimize the yield of the amount and type of product(s), as pointed out by
the examiner (answer, page 8). See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
1955).
Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established over the combined
teachings of Kellner I and Smith, we have again evaluated all of the evidence of obviousness and
nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of appellant’s
arguments and the evidence in the specification. See generally, In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460,
223 USPQ 1260, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
We have carefully considered all of appellant’s arguments and the evidence in the specification.
Appellant argues that the applied prior art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art
“the yield of saturated products and/or products which have the same fluorine content as the
starting material when using catalysts of palladium on an aluminum fluoride or fluorinated alumina
support with three-carbon chlorofluorocarbons . . . particularly
2 We take notice that appellants has not alleged that the reactant and the products are novel
compounds and indeed, have acknowledged that these three compounds are known in their
specification (e.g., page 1, lines 25-35, page 2, lines 6-10, page 3, lines 25-27, and page 4, lines 3-9).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007