Appeal No. 1995-4851
Application 08/167,656
more comprehensive body of prior art evidence might include
Scipioni. Appellants then filed the present application and,
after a first Office action (paper no. 22, mailed February 24,
1994) rejecting the claims further in view of Scipioni,
submitted a declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 by Leo Ernest
Manzer (paper no. 24, filed June 24, 1994). The examiner made
final the obviousness-type double patenting rejection and the
§ 103 rejection over Manzer in view of Groppelli and Scipioni
(paper no. 25, mailed September 15, 1994), and appellants
again appeal.
After carefully considering all of the evidence and
arguments of record, we reverse the appealed rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Manzer discloses a process for producing 1,1-difluoro-
1,2-dichloroethane and/or 1-fluoro-1,1,2-trichloroethane by
reacting a trihaloethylene, CClX=CHCl, and/or a
tetrahaloethane, CCl XCH Cl, where X in both formulas is Cl or
2 2
F, with HF in the gaseous phase in the presence of a catalyst
(col. 2, lines 8-16). The catalyst includes a catalytically
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007