Appeal No. 1997-3632 Page 5
Application No. 08/248,565
temperatures and pressures in hydrotreating processes to
affect the conversions of hydrocarbons and to affect the
degree of contaminant removal" (answer, page 6). While the
examiner correctly recognizes that the catalyst utilized in
the herein claimed process is not disclosed in Wennerberg, the
examiner expresses the opinion that "one of ordinary skill in
the art would be directed by Wennerberg to use a chromium-
containing catalyst . . ." (answer, page 7) that would
correspond to appellant’s catalyst and employ Group VI and
VIII metals and a carbon support with characteristics as
claimed herein.
Our review of the reference relied upon by the examiner
leads us to the determination that the examiner’s rejection is
founded on an inadequate evidentiary basis to establish the
obviousness of the claimed process within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. For example, notwithstanding the examiner’s
opinion, Wennerberg does not suggest using a pressure within
the herein claimed range of 400-1500 p.s.i.g. and a particular
catalyst as defined in the appealed claims in practicing their
process of catalytically treating polynuclear aromatic
containing feeds with hydrogen to obtain lower boiling
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007