Appeal No. 95-3931
Application 08/163,086
presence of water, a rhodium catalyst, and a water soluble phosphine as recited in appellants’ claim 1 (col.
2, lines 33-54). The reaction takes place in a liquid phase at 20E to 150EC and under a pressure of 0.1
to 20 MPa. Bahrmann further discloses at col. 1, lines 10-19 that
[a]part from cobalt which is widely used in industry as a catalyst metal, rhodium has also
been gaining in importance recently. In contrast to cobalt, rhodium makes it possible for
the reaction to be carried out at low pressure and furthermore, the reaction takes place
with enhanced formation of straight-chained n-aldehydes with iso-aldehydes only being
formed to a minor degree.
In view of the desirability of producing a straight chain alcohol having a minimum amount of isomers, a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Mertzweiller process to
substitute Bahrmann’s hydroformylating process for that disclosed in Mertzweiller. Moreover such a
person would have been further motivated to use Bahrmann’s process because the hydroformylating step
can be carried out a lower pressures and Bahrmann’s process provides higher yields with C to C olefins6 20
(col. 1, lines 56-61; col. 3, lines 59-63).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-4, 7 and 11 for obviousness.
However, because our affirmance is based on a different rationale than that advanced by the examiner and
because we rely on only the Mertzweiller and Bahrmann references, we denominate our affirmance as a
new ground of rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b). We note that appellants did not present arguments
specifically addressing (i) the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rottig or
Mertzweiller in view of Bahrmann, Cornils I, Cornils II, Bach I, Bach II or Bach III and appellants’
acknowledged state of the art, and (ii) the rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rottig or
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007