Appeal No. 1999-1180
Application No. 08/751,557
Claims 1 and 3 through 8 on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Moore and Morikawa.1 (Examiner’s answer, pages 3-4.)
On consideration of the record, it is our judgment that the
aforementioned rejection is well founded. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons well stated in the examiner's answer.
Nevertheless, we add the following comments primarily for
emphasis.2
Moore describes a method for the production of
difluoromethane comprising reacting a compound of formula XYCF2,
wherein X and Y are each H, Cl, or Br but at least one of X and
Y is an atom other than hydrogen, with hydrogen at elevated
temperature in the presence of a hydrogenation catalyst. (Page
2, lines 12-15.) According to Moore, the compound of formula
XYCF2 is "[u]sually" a chlorinated difluoromethane, preferably
chlorodifluoromethane. (Page 2, lines 21-22.) Also, Moore
1 Our citations to Morikawa are to the full English
language translation, a copy of which is attached to this
decision.
2 The appellants submit that the appealed claims should be
considered separately in two groups, namely group I (claims 1,
3-5, and 7) and group II (claims 6 and 8). Therefore, pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997), we select claims 1 and 6 from
the two groups of claims, respectively, and decide this appeal
as to the examiner's ground of rejection on the basis of these
claims only.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007