Ex Parte DERLETH et al - Page 10




          Appeal No. 1999-0663                                                        
          Application 08/624,047                                                      


          Scott                    Appellants                                         
          Cu:Mg:K   1.0 : 0.1-1.0 : 0.1-1.0    1.0 : 0.5-1.0 : 0.025-0.25             
          These overlaps would have rendered the appellants’ claimed                  
          catalyst prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art            
          over Scott.  See Malagari, 499 F.2d at 1303, 182 USPQ at 553.               
               Claim 7: Scott’s more preferred alumina specific surface               
          area is 75-200 m2/g, which is within the range recited in the               
          appellants’ claim 7.                                                        
               Claims 8-10: Scott discloses using the catalyst for                    
          oxychlorination of ethylene to 1,2-dichloroethane by reaction               
          with hydrogen chloride in the presence of molecular oxygen or an            
          oxygen-containing gas mixture such as air, preferably in a                  
          fluidized bed (page 3, lines 43-48).                                        
               Claim 12: Scott discloses a catalytic composition consisting           
          essentially of copper chloride, magnesium chloride and potassium            
          chloride on a support, the preferred support being particulate              
          alumina (abstract; page 3, line 25).  Like the appellants’                  
          catalyst (specification, page 2, lines 31-32), Scott’s catalyst             
          is useful for oxychlorination of ethylene to 1,2-dichloroethane             
          (abstract).  A comparison of Scott’s preferred amounts of copper,           
          magnesium and potassium, per kilo of catalytic composition                  
          (page 2, lines 47-49), versus those in the appellants’ claim 12,            
                                         10                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007