Appeal 2006-2691
Application 09/942,830
Claims 1, 7-12, and 18-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hatanaka in view of any one of Takahashi or EP ‘211 or
EP ‘295 (Answer 3).1 We AFFIRM these rejections on appeal essentially
for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Hatanaka discloses a HDS process where a
hydrocarbon feedstock is contacted with a catalyst in reaction zones to
produce a final product with a sulfur content of about 1 to 50 ppm, and the
catalyst and reaction conditions are the same or overlap with those recited in
the claims on appeal (Answer 3). The Examiner recognizes that Hatanaka
does not specifically disclose the claimed amount of sulfur in the
hydrocarbon feedstock (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to use a feedstock with any amount of sulfur greater than about
50 ppm with the expectation of successful results (Answer 3-4).
The Examiner also recognizes that Hatanaka does not disclose or
suggest the claimed sulfur-containing organic additive (Answer 4).
Therefore, the Examiner applies the three Takahashi references (Takahashi,
EP ‘211, and EP ‘295) for the teaching of using a sulfur-containing organic
additive with the same catalysts as taught by Hatanaka in a HDS process to
enhance the catalyst activities and avoid presulfurization and heat-treating of
the catalyst (Answer 4). From these findings, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time of the
1 The rejection of claims 1, 7-12, and 18-28 under § 103(a) over Baird (US
5,935,420) in view of any one of Takahashi, EP ‘211, or EP ‘295 has been
withdrawn by the Examiner. (Answer 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013