Appeal No. 2001-1105
Application No. 09/312,267
As for the requirement in the appellants’ claim 4 of a
supported antimony halide catalyst, the examiner argues that
“Tatsuo discloses a process including reacting 1,1,1-trifluoro-3-
chloro-2-propene with hydrogen fluoride to produce 1,1,1,3,3-
pentafluoropropane (page 10 of the translation) in the presence of
supported catalysts including antimony (page 11 of the
translation)” (answer, page 5). However, we do not find on page 11
or elsewhere in the translation a disclosure of a supported
antimony catalyst. Tatsuo teaches that the catalyst can be “a
carried catalyst obtained by carrying at least 1 element selected
from Cr, Zn, Ti, V, Zr, Mo, Ge, Sn and Pb on fluorinated alumina”
(page 11). None of these elements is antimony (Sb).
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not set
forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a conclusion
of prima facie obviousness of the process recited in the
appellants’ claim 4. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of this
claim and claim 2 which depends therefrom.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007