Appeal No. 94-4210
Application 07/932,415
difficulty understanding the metes and bounds of the claimed
subject matter. We do not see the problem. Therefore, we
reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. ~ 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the examiner's rejection of the dual reactor
vessel system of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. ~ 102(b) over the dual
reactor system described by Gross. Gross describes a system for
catalytic splitting of liquid hydrocarbons which reasonably
appears to be identical to a system defined by appellants'
Claim 12. Referring to Gross' drawing, there is depicted a
system comprising:
(1) a first reactor vessel 4 having a flow inlet 3, a flow
outlet 6, and a catalyst bed 5 therein which contains nickel or
cobalt (Gross, col. 5, lines 1-10, and col. 4, lines 19-25);
(2) a second reactor vessel 9 having a flow inlet 7
communicating with the flow outlet 6 of the first reactor
vessel 4, and having a catalyst charge 107 which may be the same
as that forming the catalyst bed 5 of reactor vessel 4 (Gross,
col. 6, lines 1-6);
(3) a first conduit 1 for supplying a hydrocarbon fluid
7 Gross states at column 4, lines 51-57:
The aftersplitting may be promoted by the same
cobalt- or nickel-containing catalyst which is also
used in the main reactor. This catalyst may contain,
e.g., 20-40% cobalt or nickel on a support of magnesium
silicate or alumina. It has been found desirable to add
chromium, platinum, palladium or tungsten as stabilizers
to these catalysts.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007