Appeal No. 1999-1180
Application No. 08/751,557
specification. (Appeal brief, page 11.) Again, however, these
examples cannot be fairly compared for the purpose of
establishing nonobviousness because Moore's experiments are
conducted under conditions which are significantly different
from Examples 1 and 4 of the present specification.
The appellants contend that Morikawa describes "a method
for producing different haloethane products by using different
haloethane starting materials and a different palladium-type
catalyst in contrast to the method" described in Moore.
However, both Moore and Morikawa relate to the hydrogenation of
chlorinated fluoroalkanes to form fluoroalkanes as in the
present invention. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have had a reasonable expectation that the
improvements in terms of catalyst life and hydrochloric acid
resistance as described in Morikawa would also be obtainable in
Moore by using Morikawa's catalyst.
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of all
the appealed claims as unpatentable over the combined teachings
of Moore and Morikawa.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007