Appeal No. 1996-0684
Application No. 08/116,550
chromium oxide. The examiner argues that it would have been
obvious to use that mixed catalyst in the gas-phase
fluorination process disclosed by Manzer in column 6, EXAMPLES
4-5. See the Examiner's Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3
and 4. We disagree.
For the reasons succinctly set forth in the Appeal Brief,
pages 5 through 7, we find that the proposed combination of
references is improper. Manzer cites and discusses British
Patent No. 2,030,981 (Ohsaka) in column 1, lines 19 through
50. There, Manzer suggests that the inorganic chromium (III)
catalysts of Ohsaka promote the oxidation of hydrogen chloride
to molecular chlorine and water and, therefore, cause a
decrease in selective conversion from 1,1,1-
trifluorochloroethane to 1,1,1,-2-tetrafluoroethane. In
contrast, Manzer discloses that "the catalyst of the present
invention," including the ruthenium catalyst exemplified in
column 6, EXAMPLES 4-5, minimizes the oxidation of hydrogen
chloride to molecular chlorine and water. See Manzer, column
3, lines 5 through 43. Manzer thus embarks on a different
path, disclosing metal catalysts for use in the gas-phase
fluorination of 1,1,1-trifluorochloroethane to 1,1,1,2-
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007