Appeal No. 94-1868
Application 07/864,385
The claimed process comprises a first step of reacting, in the
presence of water and a rhodium catalyst, a butadiene derivative
substituted at the two carbon position by a hydrocarbon chain
with a $-keto ester to produce a keto ester reaction product.
See the specification at page 6, lines 14 through 16. In a
second step of the claimed process, the above reaction product is
caused to undergo decarbalkoxylation in the presence of water.
Importantly, the decarbalkoxylation step is carried out without
adding an additional solvent or decarbalkoxylating agent. Also
the claimed two-step reaction process is carried out in the same
reaction vessel. Thus the appealed claims require that both the
reaction step and the step of decarbalkoxylation are carried out
?in the same reaction zone? which is said to eliminate a
potentially costly and time consuming isolation step required by
prior art processes. See the Brief at page 10.
The examiner contends that the claimed process is rendered
prima facie obvious in view of the combined teachings of Morel
and Celli. Although the examiner’s stated rejection is not
without merit, appellants argue, and we agree, that neither Morel
nor Celli teach or suggest a single reaction zone process as
claimed by appellants. The examiner’s contention that the
claimed ?same reaction zone? process has not been shown by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007