Appeal No. 1997-2265
Application No. 08/369,207
the separation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane from 1,2-
dichloroethane by extractive distillation and therefore “it is
known in the art that 1,2-dichloroethane is an undesirable
impurity in
1,1,1-trichloroethane.” (Answer, page 3). Appellants do not
contest this finding but note that Bursack does not disclose
the chlorination recited in claim 2 on appeal (Brief, page 3).
The examiner applies Gordon for the disclosure that
1,2-dichloroethane can be reacted with chlorine to produce
1,1,2-trichloroethane (Answer, pages 3 and 5). From these
disclosures, the examiner makes the following conclusions:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to utilize the process of Gorden et
al [sic, Gordon] to reduce the amount of 1,2-
dichloroethane
in the mixture of 1,2-dichloroethane and
1,1,1-trichloroethane of Bursack et al to obtain
the instant results of applicants [sic, appellants]
because there would have been a reasonable
expectation that the 1,2-dichloroethane in the
said mixture would react to produce 1,1,2-
trichloroethane and thereby reducing the
amount of 1,2-dichloroethane
present in said mixture.
Gorden et al [sic, Gordon] clearly teaches that
1,2-dichloroethane will react with chlorine. It
would have been reasonable to expect this reaction to
take place in the presence of other components
including 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Therefore, there
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007