Appeal 2007-0620
Application 10/323,626
Fig. 1 is an optional embodiment taught by Smith. In this respect, one of
ordinary skill in this art would have recognized from the teachings of Smith
that without bypass 13, the heat exchange medium would flow through
incoming heat exchange medium conduit to heat exchange medium inlet 8
without the addition of material from conduit 12 bypassing incoming
reactant conduit 17.
We agree with Appellants that Smith would have taught the intra-
reactor flow of the heat exchange medium and the conduit arrangement
illustrated in Smith’s Fig. 1 with a diluent or a stable reactant or product not
affected by heat encountered in conducting an exothermic or endothermic
reaction as heat exchange medium. However, we are of the opinion that one
of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized that the reactor of Smith
can be used to conduct endothermic and exothermic reactions with other
heat exchange mediums not affected by heat by merely disconnecting
conduit 12 from conduit 17, resulting in control of the heat exchange
medium flow separate from the reactant flow. Indeed, this person would
have recognized that the flow of any heat exchange medium horizontally
across the longitudinal catalyst tubes would provide the cooling or heating
benefits apparent from the disclosure of Smith, and thus that the loss of the
function of combining the reactant and the heat exchange medium and the
use of a different heat exchanged medium would not change the basic
principle of operation of the reactor. See, e.g., In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,
555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975); In re Wilson, 377 F.2d 1014, 1017,
153 USPQ 740, 742 (CCPA 1967) (elimination of component whose
function is not desired); In re Keegan, 331 F.2d 315, 319, 141 USPQ 512,
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013