Ex Parte MERRILL et al - Page 4



          Appeal No. 2004-2118                                       Page 4           
          Application 09/329,502                                                      


               and poly-alkylated aromatic components and benzene by said             
               alkylating agent in the presence of said molecular sieve               
               alkylation catalyst; and                                               
                    (h) supplying the alkylation product from said                    
               alkylation reaction zone to an intermediate recovery zone              
               for the separation and recovery of mono-alkylbenzene from              
               the alkylation product and for the separation and recovery             
               of a polyalkylated aromatic component, including                       
               dialkybenzene, and employing said polyalkylated aromatic               
               component as at least a portion of the polyalkylated                   
               aromatic component supplied in subparagraph (b) of claim 1.            
               In addition to alleged admitted prior art, the following               
          prior art references of record are relied upon by the examiner in           
          rejecting the appealed claims:                                              
          West et al. (West)            5,324,877           Jun. 28, 1994             
          Butler                        0 467 007           Jan. 22, 1992             
          (published European Patent Application)                                     
               Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)            
          as being unpatentable over West alternatively in view of admitted           
          prior art as disclosed by appellants in their specification.                
          Claims 10-13 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as           
          being unpatentable over West in view of admitted prior art as               
          disclosed by appellants in their specification and Butler.2                 



               2 See the supplemental answer and response to remand mailed            
          Dec. 05, 2003.                                                              





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007