Appeal No. 1999-0663
Application 08/624,047
the appellants acknowledge that it was known in the art to use a
copper chloride/magnesium chloride/alkali metal chloride catalyst
composition, such as that disclosed by Scott, for oxychlorination
of ethylene in a fluidized bed containing heat exchanger tubes
(specification, page 2, lines 2-24). Scott does not disclose
that any soiling material is deposited on heat exchanger tubes
within the fluidized bed.
For the above reasons, the composition recited in the
appellants’ claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 12, and the process recited in
the appellants’ claim 13, would have been prima facie obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art. The evidence relied upon by
the appellants (brief, appendix III) is not effective for
overcoming the prima facie case of obviousness for the reasons
given above regarding the rejection of claims 11, 14 and 16-27.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 11, 14 and 16-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Scott is affirmed. Under the provisions of 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b), a new ground of rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12
and 13 has been entered.
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one or
more claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007