Ex parte DUFRESNE et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-3454                                         Page 3           
          Application No. 08/260,295                                                  

                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The appellants' invention relates to a method of                       
          presulphurizing hydrocarbon conversion catalysts using a                    
          presulphuration agent including sulfur compounds of a type (a)              
          and (b) each with different decomposition temperatures.  An                 
          understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading                
          of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.                            
               1. In a process for presulphurizing a hydrocarbon                      
          conversion catalyst, the improvement comprising employing a                 
          presulphuration agent containing (a) at least one first                     
          sulphur compound having a decomposition point T1 of less than               
          220EC and (b) at least one second sulphur compound having a                 
          decomposition point T2 greater than about 220EC.                            
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Seiver et al. (Seiver)        4,431,747           February 14,              
          1984                                                                        
          Berrebi                       4,530,917           July 23, 1985             
               Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being              
          unpatentable over Berrebi in view of Seiver.                                
               We make reference to the examiner's answer(s) for the                  
          examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the                
          appellants' brief(s) for the appellants' arguments                          
          thereagainst.                                                               








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007