Appeal No. 98-3017 5
Application No. 08/437,986
from a mixed xylenes/ethylbenzene feedstream since Burress also requires such a
feedstock in the production of a purified p-xylene stream.” See Answer, page 5.
Assuming arguendo that the combination of Burress with Parker is sufficient to
meet the limitations of the claimed subject matter before us, the issue remains whether
there is sufficient motivation to combine the disclosures of Burress and Parker in the
manner suggested by the examiner. It is the examiner’s position with respect to the two
references that, “[t]he motivation to combine would have come from the cost savings of
not having to use such a fractionating tower, a fact realized by Burgess.” See Answer,
page 10. We disagree.
The basic assumption of the examiner is that replacement of an ethyl benzene
distillation tower with the isomerization/cracking process of Parker results in cost savings.
There is no evidence however, to support that position. Although the distillation of
ethyl benzene in a tower is expensive, as acknowledged by Burress, it is not evident that
the replacement of a distillation tower by a cracking process utilizing an
isomerizing/cracking apparatus would result in an economic advantage and a cost saving
as argued by the examiner.
The examiner must show reasons that the skilled artisan with no knowledge of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007