Appeal No. 1999-2548
Application No. 08/648,236
of ordinary skill in the art would eliminate the chlorination
step” (answer, page 15). The examiner’s position is not well
taken.
We share the appellants’ view that it would not have been
obvious to eliminate the above noted chlorination step from
Suggitt’s process. In the first place, this step removes, not
just vanadium as the examiner believes but also, iron (e.g.,
see lines 60 through 62 in column 7). Secondly, and more
significantly, the examiner has begged the issue by concluding
that it would have been obvious to eliminate Suggitt’s
chlorination step if removal of the contaminating metal,
namely, vanadium “is not desired or not required”. That is,
the examiner has advanced no evidence that the removal of
vanadium (or for that matter iron) “is not desired or not
required”. On the contrary, the prior art represented by the
Suggitt reference
plainly evinces that the removal of contaminating metals
particularly vanadium are both desired and required in order
to avoid catalyst deactivation.
In summary, it is our determination that the process
disclosed by Suggitt includes a chlorination step for removing
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007