Appeal No. 2000-0697
Application No. 09/049938
As urged by appellants, Riley does not teach or suggest the
catalytic hydrogenation of the particular feedstock claimed,
i.e., one having a 95% boiling point of 450°C or less, and the
reference does not teach or suggest that the second catalyst
comprises a support having 3-15 wt.% silica. Unlike the claimed
feedstock, Riley is directed to a heavy hydrocarbon feed boiling
above 650°F which contains substantial quantities of material (at
least 10%) boiling above 1000°F (see column 3, lines 50-57 and
column 4, lines 5-8). Also, while Riley teaches that the support
for the second catalyst "may further contain minor amounts of
silica" (column 6, lines 35-36), there is no suggestion that the
support contain the claimed 3-15 wt.% silica. In addition, Riley
does not teach obtaining a product having less than 500 ppm
sulphur. The reference discloses maintaining approximately
3000 ppm sulphur in the product.
The examiner maintains that:
The argument Riley does not disclose that 95% of
the feedstock boils of [sic, at] 450°C or less is not
persuasive because the examiner maintains that one
having ordinary skill in the art would have modified
the Riley process by utilizing a feed having a boiling
point in a range as claimed because it would be
expected that the results would be similar or the same
because the two processes are similar [page 6 of
Answer, first paragraph].
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007