Ex parte RUDNICK et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-1640                                                          
          Application 07/752,138                                                      


               Forbus is directed to the preparation of alkylaromatic                 
          hydrocarbons, suitable as lubricant basestocks and additives,               
          by reacting at least one alkylatable aromatic compound and C -              
                                                                      12              
          C  mono-olefin in an alkylation zone in the presence of an                  
           40                                                                         
          acidic alkylation catalyst under alkylation conditions.                     
          Forbus describes the alkylatable aromatic compounds as                      
          substituted benzene, naphthalene and anthracene derivatives,                
          and the acid alkylation catalyst as a zeolite catalyst.                     
               The examiner recognizes that Forbus does not specifically              
          disclose thianthrene as a reactant, and yet he alleges that                 
          the expression "similarly substituted naphthalenes and                      
          anthracenes" at column 5, lines 40-47, anticipates a                        
          thianthrene reactant.  Thianthrene a heterocyclic structure                 
          and not a polynuclear aromatic compound as are the                          
          naphthalenes and anthracenes.   Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.                 
          102 rejection cannot be sustained.  Anticipation within 35                  
          U.S.C.  102 is established only when a single prior art                    
          reference discloses, expressly, or under the principles of                  
          inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.  RCA              
          Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,                 
          1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).   Note also W.L.                  
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007