Appeal No. 95-3931
Application 08/163,086
Opinion
Appellants state on page 3 of the brief that “Claims 1 to 11 stand together.” In each of the
aforementioned rejections, Rottig, Mertzweiller and Bahrmann are common to all of the rejections. We
note that appellants arguments’ in the brief addressed only the combination of Rottig or Mertzweiller in view
of Bahrmann and that appellants contend that the references as combined are not suggestive of the claimed
subject matter. We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and the position of the examiner, and
for the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the rejections, albeit for a rationale which differs from that
set forth by the examiner. Because our affirmance is based on a different rationale, we denominate the
affirmance as a new grounds of rejection under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (1998).
Claim 1 is directed to a process for the preparation of predominantly unbranched primary alcohols
having 10 carbon atoms. The process comprises reacting CO and H in the presence of water and a
2
rhodium or a rhodium compound catalyst with an olefin having 9 carbon atoms formed from a Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis in the presence of a water soluble salt having a phosphine anion containing at least one
sulfonated or carboxylated aromatic radical and a cation having the following formula
where Z can be a nitrogen atom, A is a C to C alkyl or aralkyl group, and B, C and D are C to C7 18 1 4
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007