Appeal 2007-0620
Application 10/323,626
Appellants contend Iwanaga does not suggest the need for horizontal baffles
in the chlorine producing process for any reason, disclosing that a tube with
surrounding jacket controls the temperature in the reaction zone (id. 6).
Appellants contend Smith teaches exothermic reactions using inert diluents,
thermally stable reactants or product components, particularly in the
dehydrogenation of alkylated aromatic hydrocarbons, and would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such baffles in a chlorine
producing process as disclosed by Iwanaga (id. 5-6). Appellants contend the
combination of Iwanaga and Smith requires a change in the basic principle
of operation of Iwanaga’s process because Smith teaches bypass 13
transports a portion of the heat exchange medium from conduit 12 back to
the heat exchange chamber, thus inserting Iwanaga’s heat exchange medium,
including molten salt, into the hydrogen chloride and oxygen gas reaction
mixture (id. 6-7). Appellants contend one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have used Smith’s horizontal baffles in the jacket of the tubular reactor
of Iwanaga as it would prevent the preferred feature of the heat exchange
flowing from the bottom to the top of the jacket, and thus Iwanaga teaches
away from the combination (id. 7-8).
With respect to claim 17, Appellants contend the required gap in the
claimed range between the catalyst tube and the deflection plate or baffle is
not suggested by the combination of references because Iwanaga does not
disclose a horizontal baffle and the catalyst tube and baffle are connected in
Smith (Br. 9). With respect to claim 33, Appellants contend Wanka
2 A discussion of Sawada is not necessary to our decision. See In re Kronig,
539 F.2d 1300, 1302-04, 190 USPQ 425, 426-28 (CCPA 1976).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013