Appeal No. 94-4210
Application 07/932,415
introduction into a reactor vessel. While we agree with the
examiner that it is irrelevant to the patentability of the
claimed system whether the conduits of Gross's system introduce
hydrogen or diluent or any other gas or fluid (Examiner's Answer,
pages 4-5, bridging ~), we find that the number of conduits
introducing material into the reactors of the system defined by
appellants' Claim 13 exceeds by one the number of conduits
introducing material into the reactors of the system described by
Gross.
On the other hand, we affirm the examiner's rejection of
Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. ~ 103 as unpatentable over Gross in view
of Carney. Appellant argues that the rejection of Claim 14
(Appellants' Brief, page 7):
based upon the combination of Gross . . . and Carney . . .
fails for the reasons stated . . . with respect to Gross
. . . that [Gross is] . . . directed to structures for
hydrocracking straight-chain hydrocarbons and [has] . . .
nothing to do with purification of monomer feedstock prior
to polymerization, such as phenylacetylene reduction in
styrene monomer.
As stated above, we find that Gross describes each and every
physical and chemical limitation of the system defined by
appellants' Claim 12. Moreover, we also find that the
introduction of steam and/or gas via conduits 2 and 8 into main
feedstock flow inlets 3 and 7 in Gross' system inherently acts to
statically mix the fluids in the inlets of the respective reactor
vessels of the system. Furthermore, we hold that placement of
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007