Appeal No. 1998-1067
Application No. 08/273,933
such that at least 40% of the xylene produced is
para-xylene; and
(c) separating the product by distillation to
recover at least benzene and xylene fractions, each
of which contain less than 0.5 wt% close-boiling
non-aromatic impurities.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Bonacci et al. (Bonacci) 3,957,621 May 18,
1976
Kaeding 4,016,219 Apr. 5, 1977
Butter 4,067,919 Jan. 10, 1978
Haag et al. (Haag) 4,097,543 Jun. 27, 1978
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bonacci and Butter combined
with Kaeding and Haag. In the paragraph bridging pages 7 and
8 of the final office action (i.e., Paper No. 8), the examiner
expresses his obviousness conclusion in the following manner:
Therefore, in view of the difference(s) between
the subject matter as a whole sought to be patented
and the totality of the teaching(s) of prior art, as
established above, it would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains, to follow the teachings of Bonacci
(3,957,621) and Butter (4,067,919) combined with
Kaeding (4,016,219) and Haag(4,097,543), and
practice the same process with any toluene feed
stock, optionally containing other close boiling
non-aromatics (paraffins etc.) and use the same
catalyst for the conversion and call the process
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007