Appeal No. 2002-2057
Application No. 09/351,147
IV. Other Issues
Prior to an allowance of this application, the examiner and
the appellants should reconsider a possible rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of all the appealed claims as unpatentable over
Drake in view of EP ’736 and any other prior art.
Drake describes a process of converting hydrocarbon (e.g.,
naphthas), which may be diluted with steam, to a C6-C8 aromatic
hydrocarbon and an olefin using a zeolite catalyst composition.
(Column 1, lines 8-13; column 8, line 66 to column 9, line 20;
column 9, lines 43-47.) According to Drake, the catalyst
composition comprises a zeolite (e.g., ZSM-5), a clay, and a
promoter (e.g., a phosphorus-containing compound), wherein the
weight ratio of clay to zeolite may be from about 1:20 to about
20:1. (Column 2, lines 44-65; column 3, line 45 to column 6,
line 13.)
Although Drake does not disclose the initial Si/Al molar
ratio of the catalyst, the reference teaches that “[a]ny
commercially available zeolite which can catalyze the conversion
of a hydrocarbon to an aromatic compound and an olefin can be
employed...” (Column 5, lines 65-67.) EP ’736 teaches such a
catalyst. (Example 1.)
The examiner and the appellants should fully explore
whether it would have been prima facie obvious for one of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007