Appeal No. 95-4665
Application No. 08/101,111
The examiner applies Beech for the teaching of the basic
olefin hydration and etherification reaction (Answer, page 3).
The examiner finds that Beech differs from the claimed subject
matter in that Beech does not disclose the “last step of
distilling the product to recover a dry ether.” (Answer, page
4). Therefore the examiner applies Harandi for the teaching
that purification of ether by distillation to obtain a dry
product is well known (Id.).
Appellants assert that there are two essential
differences between the claimed recovery technique and the
process of Beech, namely, the recovery of stripped C3 recycle
components and off-gas purging, and DIPE product recovery with
low water content by distillation (Brief, page 4).
The examiner’s Answer addresses the difference between
Beech and the claimed subject matter with regard to the final
distillation recovery (Answer, page 4). In the statement of
the rejection in the Answer the examiner fails to address the
claimed limitations regarding the other difference between the
Beech process and the process of appealed claim 1, i.e., the
recovery of stripped C3 recycle components and off-gas
purging. In response to appellants’ arguments, the examiner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007