Appeal No. 1995-4855
Application No. 08/146,334
mere water washing of Christoph would still leave “relatively
high amounts of other ash components” (Request, page 3).
Appellants’ arguments are not well taken since Christoph
is directed to the same type of reaction as the primary
reference (Leicester), namely the exchange of a chloro atom
from a chlorinated hydrocarbon for the fluorine from the HF
reactant in the presence of a chromium trifluoride catalyst
(see Christoph, column 1, lines 33-36; column 2, lines 24-35;
Leicester, page 1, left column, lines 1-46). Furthermore, 3
the teaching of Christoph regarding the process temperature is
only used as an additional teaching to Leicester with regard
to the temperature limitation recited in claim 11 on appeal
(Decision, page 9).
Appellants’ arguments regarding the ash content are
equally unpersuasive. Certainly the reduction in alkali metal
content as taught by Christoph is also a reduction in the ash
content. The only evidence appellants submit regarding the
ash content is the Rao reference. However, the data in Table
3Christoph is cited and discussed by appellants on page 3
of the specification. See footnote 4 on page 6 of the
Decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007