Appeal No. 1998-1567 6
Application No. 08/636,816
that Warren is directed to the oxidative coupling of lower alkanes to produce heavier
hydrocarbons in contrast with the dehydrogenation catalytic reaction of Font Freide. See
column 4, lines 46-50. Furthermore, the large variety of oxidative coupling catalysts,
supports and shapes disclosed at column 6, line 48 to column 7, line 33 contain an
oxidative coupling catalyst, Table I, outside the scope of the claimed subject matter and
directed to a different and distinct catalytic reaction. Accordingly, contrary to the
examiner’s position, we conclude that there is no reason to equate the catalysts of
Warren with those of the primary reference.
Hazbun is even further removed from the catalyst of the primary reference in that
it is directed to conducting catalytic ceramic membranes. See column 1, lines 10-12.
Hazbun further discloses two layer conducting catalytic ceramic membranes and the use
of these membranes in hydrocarbon conversion processes. See column 2, lines 57-65.
Moreover, the product of the catalytic reaction is in one wherein hydrocarbons are
coupled to form olefins and diolefins and ethylene and propylene are oxidized to form
ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, aldehydes, acids and anhydrides and other organic
materials contrary to the disclosure of Font Freide directed to a catalytic dehydrogenation
reaction. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no reason to equate the catalysts of
Hazbun with those of the primary reference.
Finally, we recognize the protest submitted on October 29, 1997, Paper No. 25.
We note however, that there is no rejection before us based on the references submitted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007