Appeal No. 1998-2622
Application No. 08/530,684
(Answer, pages 3-4). The examiner further finds that the
difference between Siskin and the claimed subject matter is
that Siskin does not specifically teach removal of sulfones
(id. at page 4).
From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made “to have modified the process
of Siskin to specifically remove sulfone from a hydrocarbon
feedstock because Siskin has taught the removal of a general
class of organic sulfur compounds containing oxygen which
would be recognized by an artisan skilled in the art to
include sulfone and with the expectation of achieving similar
results.” (Id.).
Siskin teaches the “virtual quantitative removal of
organic sulfur . . . compounds” by contacting a liquid
hydrocarbon feedstock with hydrogen fluoride (col. 1, ll. 57-
61). Irregardless of the interpretation of the Siskin
disclosure of removing organic groups such as oxygen and
nitrogen, we agree with the examiner that removal of “organic
sulfur compounds” by Siskin is generic to the claimed removal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007