Appeal No. 1996-3367 Page 8
Application No. 08/480,554
1331, 1332-1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting
In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
We are mindful of the potential disadvantage of the
possible requirement of a subsequent "high-boiler
distillation" in some applications such as vinyl chloride
production via direct "thermal cleavage" from the 1,2-
dichloroethane product that Böttger (English translation,
pages 6 and 7) may be viewed as attributing to the lower
catalyst component ratio of Example 2 and as claimed herein.
Nevertheless, we conclude that a skilled artisan would have
recognized the Example 2 and smaller sodium chloride to ferric
chloride ratio catalyst embodiment disclosed by Böttger is an
obviously available option where such concerns are not
relevant or outweighed by the increasing sodium chloride
demand of the disclosed higher sodium chloride ratio
embodiment. This is especially so since appellants' claimed
process is not limited to a process for the direct formation
of vinyl chloride without removal of high boilers via
distillation.
In addition, appellants have not clearly substantiated
any identified and nonobvious refinement to the use of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007