Appeal No. 2000-0782
Application No. 08/549,322
B. The Admitted Prior Art
Appellants admit that “[i]t is known to prepare 1-chloro-1-
fluoroethane by reaction between vinyl chloride and hydrogen
fluoride in the liquid phase.” Specification, page 1, ll. 8-10.3
Additionally, joint production of the 1-chloro-1-fluoroethane and
1,1-difluoroethane products was also known from these same
reactants (specification, paragraph bridging pages 1-2).
The admitted prior art as acknowledged by appellants does not
disclose or teach that the product(s) is (are) immediately removed
from the reaction zone. Accordingly, at some point during the
reaction, product will be present which acts as a solvent, which
reads on the construction of claim 1 as discussed above. See Exxon
Chemical Patents Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1558,
35 USPQ2d 1801, 1804-05 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
C. The Applied Prior Art
Rao discloses a process for the preparation of fluorinated
alkanes by contacting halogenated alkenes, including vinyl
3It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an applicant’s
specification may be used in determining the patentability of a
claimed invention (In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ
607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975)); and that consideration of the prior art
cited by the examiner may include consideration of the admitted
prior art found in an applicant’s specification (In re Davis, 305
F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962); cf., In re Hedges,
783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007