Appeal No. 1995-4851
Application 08/167,656
The examiner argues that appellants’ claims and those of
Corbin “differ only in the starting materials used” (answer,
page 3). As pointed out by appellants (brief, page 29), the
examiner is incorrect. The product made by Corbin’s process,
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, is a hydrofluorocarbon, and differs
from the hydrochlorofluorocarbon, 2-chloro-1,1,1-
trifluoroethane, made by appellants’ process.
The examiner argues that Manzer discloses the equivalence
of various saturated and unsaturated starting materials in a
process which is similar to that of Corbin (answer, page 3).
Manzer
teaches that his starting material can be a trihaloethene,
CClX=CHCl, and/or a tetrahaloethane, CCl XCH Cl, where, in both
2 2
formulas, X is Cl or F. The formula for Manzer’s
trihaloethene includes CCl =CHCl and CClF=CHCl, which can be
2
appellants’ starting materials. Manzer’s tetrahaloethane
includes CH ClCCl and CH ClCCl F, which fall within the2 3 2 2
formulas for Corbin’s tetrahaloethane starting materials,
i.e., CH ClCX and CH XCClX , where, in both formulas, X is Cl2 3 2 2
or F. The examiner’s argument apparently is that given the
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007