Appeal No. 1997-1959
Application 08/351,908
where chlorine is positioned on an internal carbon atom of a type which is not even present in two
carbon reactants such as [1,1,1,2-tetrafluorochloroethane (CF3CHClF)]” (brief, pages 5-6; emphasis in
original deleted; italic emphasis supplied). Appellant thus “submits that while palladium is a well known
hydrogenolysis and hydrodechlorination catalyst component, its effect can vary in particular applications
based upon the use of different supports; and that the results obtained with different substrates is highly
unpredictable” (id., page 6). In this respect, Appellant contends that the claimed three-carbon reactant,
2,2-dichlorohexafluoropropane (CF3CCl2CF3) is not analogous to the two-carbon reactant of Kellner I,
1,1,1,2-tetrafluorochloroethane (CF3CHClF), because there is no secondary dichloro substituted
carbon, and thus Kellner I would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art that the former
would be expected to react in a manner analogous to the latter in the presence of palladium on an
aluminum fluoride or fluorinated alumina support (id., pages 7-8).
Appellant further contends that Smith would not have reasonably suggested that 2,2-
dichlorohexafluoropropane (CF3CCl2CF3) can be efficiently hydrodechlorinated to the claimed
products by the use of palladium on an aluminum fluoride or fluorinated alumina support taught in
Kellner I (id., pages 8-9). Appellant points out in this respect that Smith discloses the use of an
activated carbon supported palladium catalyst in the hydrodechlorination of 1,2,2-
trichloropentafluoropropane (CF3CCl2CClF2), a three-carbon fluorochlorocarbon in contrast to the
two-carbon fluorochlorocarbon of Kellner I, which “contains both internal and end-carbon chlorine
substituents” (original emphasis deleted) and results in the formation of olefinic products “depending on
reaction conditions,” where no olefinic products are reported by Kellner I (id., pages 9-10). Appellant
alleges that the specification Comparative Runs No. 6 and 7 (pages 5-6), which use palladium on a
carbon support, along with Smith “suggest that during the catalytic hydrodechlorination of a three-
carbon chlorofluorocarbon significant amounts of olefins can be formed, and that the comparative
experiment further suggests that where [2,2-dichloro-hexafluoropropane (CF3CCl2CF3)] is the starting
material . . . significant amount of hydrofluorocarbons containing less fluorine substituents than the
starting materials can be formed” (brief, page 9; see also, pages 6 and 11). With respect to the specific
product requirements set forth in claim 8, appellant alleges that the same are not suggested by Smith
because the specification Comparative Runs No. 6 and 7 establish that “very different results [are]
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007