Appeal No. 96-0112
Application 07/877,913
quenching the resultant product in the riser reactor at an area located in about 50% to 80% of the riser
reactor length from the base of the riser reactor, which is equivalent to at least 1.5 seconds of vapor
residence time in the riser reactor. See, e.g., claim 1 in conjunction with the specification, page 10.
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the disclosure of Owen. Appellants do not contest that Owen discloses the claimed catalytic cracking
conditions, including the claimed hydrocarbon feedstock. Appellants only argue that:
1) The disclosure of Owen would not have rendered quenching at the particular location of
a riser reactor as recited in claim 1 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see Brief, page 4);
2) The prima facie case of obviousness established by the examiner is rebutted by showing
that quenching at the particular location of a riser reactor as recited in claim 1 imparts unexpected
results (see Brief, page 5); and
3) The disclosure of Owen would not have rendered the injection of a quenching fluid in a
manner recited in claims 8, 16, 17, 19 and 20 to produce the aspirating or educting effect within a riser
reactor prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103
(see Brief, pages 5 and 6).
We agree with the examiner that the Owen reference would have rendered quenching at the
claimed location of a riser reactor prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As indicated
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007