Appeal No. 2004-0638
Application No. 10/038,975
The examiner relies upon the following references in the
rejections of the appealed claims:
Randall et al. (Randall) 3,213,113 Oct. 19, 1965
Smith et al. (Smith '017) 3,456,017 Jul. 15, 1969
Smith et al. (Smith '819) 3,463,819 Aug. 26, 1969
Ozero 4,134,797 Jan. 16, 1979
Paggini et al. (Paggini) 4,358,625 Nov. 09, 1982
Coffey 5,529,667 Jun. 25, 1996
Slaugh et al. (Slaugh '389) 5,723,389 Mar. 03, 1998
Slaugh et al. (Slaugh '478) 5,731,478 Mar. 24, 1998
Powell et al. (Powell '182) 5,777,182 Jul. 07, 1998
Powell et al. (Powell '808) 5,981,808 Nov. 09, 1999
Kirk-Othmer, 8 Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 551-52
(2d ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1965)
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a process for
preparing 1,3-propanediol by an essentially conventional process,
i.e., reacting ethylene oxide feed with carbon monoxide and
hydrogen to form 3-hydroxypropanal, and then hydrogenating the
intermediate to form 1,3-propanediol. Appellants' invention is
directed to using a less pure form of feed ethylene oxide,
namely, a feed containing more than 50 ppm acetaldehyde.
According to appellants, "[t]he use of impure feed allows a lower
feed material cost thus effecting essential economies in
operation" (sentence bridging pages 2 and 3 of Brief).
Appealed claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith '819, Smith '017,
Slaugh '389, Slaugh '478, Powell '182 and Powell '808 in view of
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007