Appeal No. 2002-1530 Page 3
Application No. 09/138,217
(v) a separate benzene inlet to said first of said plurality of transalkylation catalyst
beds such that benzene may be fed to said first bed and subsequent beds independently of
feeding poly substituted benzenes to said first and subsequent beds.
THE EVIDENCE
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references:
Gilmore2,548,966Apr. 17, 1951
Smith, Jr. et al. (Smith) 5,055,627 Oct. 8, 1991
Innes et al. (Innes) 5,081,323 Jan. 14, 1992
Cosyns et al. (Cosyns) 5,306,852 Apr. 26, 1994
THE REJECTION
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith and
further in view of Innes, Gilmore, and Cosyns (Answer at 3-5). We reverse for the following
reasons.
OPINION
“A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant to section 103(a) is
casting the mind back to the time of invention, to consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in
the art, guided only by the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the field.” In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007