Appeal No. 1995-4851
Application 08/167,656
to arrive at appellants’ claimed process comes solely from the
description of appellants’ process in their specification.
Thus, the examiner used impermissible hindsight when rejecting
the claims. See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393,
396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Obviousness-type double patenting rejection
Claim 1 of Corbin reads as follows:
1. A process for producing 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane
comprising the step of reacting a tetrahaloethane of the
formula CH ClCX or the formula CH XCClX wherein each X is2 3 2 2
chlorine or fluorine, with HF in the gaseous phase at an
elevated temperature in the presence of a supported metal
catalyst; wherein said catalyst is a catalyst of metal
fluoride on a fluorinated alumina support having an atomic
ratio of F to Al of at least 2.7:1 and containing $-aluminum
fluoride; wherein said supported metal includes zinc and
optionally includes one or more other
metal selected from Group VIII, VII, VIIB, VIB, IIIB, IIB and
IB
of the Periodic Table and elements having atomic numbers
between 57 and 71; and wherein zinc is at least about 0.1
percent by weight of the catalyst and is at least 40 percent
by weight of the metal on said support.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007