Appeal No. 95-2958
Application 08/108,570
presence of this chlorine would produce a product recited in
appellants’ claims.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness of appellants’ claimed
invention over Minklei.
The examiner does not explain, and it is not apparent,
why Bielefeldt and Minklei, taken together, would have fairly
suggested appellants’ claimed invention to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
Fiske discloses a fluorination method wherein hydrogen
fluoride is reacted with a chlorinated lower aliphatic
hydrocarbon in the vapor phase at about 275-425EC in the
presence of steam and a metal fluoride catalyst (col. 1, lines
27-36). Fiske does not disclose that the method produces any
of the products recited in appellants’ claims.
The examiner states that he applies Fiske only with
respect to the catalysts in some of appellants’ dependent
claims (answer, page 5). It appears that the examiner also
intends for this reference to be applied to appellants’
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007