Ex Parte GERRITSEN et al - Page 2



         Appeal No. 2000-0697                                                       
         Application No. 09/049938                                                  

         oxidic carrier, after which at least part of the effluent from             
         the first catalyst is contacted with a second catalyst comprising          
         a Group VI hydrogenation metal component and a Group VIII                  
         hydrogenation metal component on an oxidic carrier which                   
         comprises 3 to 15 wt.% of silica, calculated on the weight of the          
         catalyst, to achieve the reduction in the sulphur of the                   
         hydrocarbon feedstock to less than 500 ppm.                                
              The examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence          
         of obviousness:                                                            
         Riley                       4,048,060               Sep. 13, 1977          
              Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a process for            
         reducing the sulphur content of a hydrocarbon feedstock having a           
         95% boiling point of 450°C or less and a sulphur content of at             
         least 0.1 wt.%.  The process is conducted in the presence of               
         first and second hydrogenation catalysts wherein the second                
         catalyst comprises an oxidic carrier of 3-15 wt.% silica.  The             
         product of the process has a sulphur content of less than                  
         500 ppm.                                                                   
              Appealed claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as           
         being unpatentable over Riley.                                             
              Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments                  
         presented on appeal, we find that the examiner has not                     
         established a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed              
         process.  Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's                  
         rejection.                                                                 

                                        -2-                                         



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007