Appeal No. 2002-1530 Page 4
Application No. 09/138,217
consider the rejection in this light, we find the evidence inadequate to support the rejection as
advanced by the Examiner.
The apparatus of claim 15 includes a transalkylator with a plurality of catalyst beds and a
plurality of inlets, one inlet being disposed upstream of each bed. The Examiner acknowledges
that Smith does not describe a transalkylator with multiple inlets as claimed. The only specific
transalkylator disclosed by Smith has a single inlet for feeding a blend of polyalkylate (poly
substituted benzene) and benzene to the transalkylator. Therefore, the Examiner turns to Innes
for a teaching of the required multiple inlets. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
an obvious matter of design choice to substitute the transalkylation reactor of Smith with the
reactors taught by Innes since such a modification would have involved a mere substitution of
known equivalent structures (Answer at 4).
The problem is that Innes does not teach what the Examiner states it to teach. Namely,
Innes does not teach “that the reactants/feedstock (which would be the poly substituted benzene
for the transalkylation reactor) can be added between the beds” (Answer at 3). Innes only
discusses adding olefin and benzene between beds for alkylation. Nowhere does Innes include a
broader statement that such interstage addition is desirable in general much less any specific
statement regarding interstage addition in the transalkylation apparatus.
The portions of Innes relied upon by the Examiner do not support a broader interpretation
of Innes with regard to interstage addition. The Examiner relies upon column 6, lines 4-19 of
Innes, but this portion of Innes speaks of only interstage addition of olefin and benzene for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007