Ex Parte PENNETREAU et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2000-0782                                                        
          Application No. 08/549,322                                                  


          heavy halogen-containing side products, by reacting hydrogen                
          fluoride with vinyl chloride in the liquid phase in an organic              
          solvent consisting of at least one saturated halogen-containing             
          hydrocarbon (Brief, page 2).                                                
               Appellants state that their claims do not stand or fall                
          together (Brief, page 4).  However, appellants do not provide               
          any reasonably specific, substantive reasons for the separate               
          patentability of any individual claim except claim 11 (Brief, page          
          8; Reply Brief, page 12).1  Therefore, pursuant to the provisions           
          of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997), we select claim 1 from the grouping          
          of claims and decide this appeal as to the ground of rejection on           
          the basis of this claim alone, with consideration of claim 11 to            
          the extent it is separately argued by appellants (see the Answer,           
          page 2, paragraph (7), and the Brief, page 8). Illustrative claim 1         
          is reproduced below:                                                        
               1.  A process for the manufacture of 1-chloro-l-fluoroethane,          
          1,1-difluoroethane or mixtures thereof, with reduced formation of           
          heavy halogen-containing side products, by reaction between                 
          hydrogen fluoride and vinyl chloride in the liquid phase, wherein           
          the hydrogen fluoride and the vinyl chloride are introduced into an         

               1We refer to the Reply Brief dated Aug. 31, 1998, Paper No.            
          30, entered by the examiner as noted in the Letter dated Sep. 16,           
          1998, Paper No. 32.  The Substitute Reply Brief dated Dec. 28,              
          1998, Paper No. 33, was refused entry by the examiner and thus is           
          not part of the record before us in this appeal (see the Letter             
          dated Jan. 20, 1999, Paper No. 34).                                         
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007