Appeal No. 2004-1488
Application No. 09/768,733
(b) cooling the hydrotreated effluent;
(c) contacting the cooled hydrotreated effluent
with a hydrotreating catalyst at conditions being
effective for conversion of polyaromatic hydrocarbons
to monoaromatic compounds; and
(d) introducing the hydrotreated effluent from
step (c) into an FCC unit for producing gasoline.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Inwood 3,691,060 Sep. 12, 1972
Kelley et al. (Kelley) 4,040,944 Aug. 09, 1977
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kelley.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kelley.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kelley in view of Inwood.
On page 4 of the brief, appellants state that the
claims stand or fall together. We therefore consider claim
1 in this appeal.
We have carefully reviewed the examiner’s answer,
appellants’ brief and reply brief, and the applied art of
record. This review has lead us to conclude that the
examiner’s rejections are well-founded.
OPINION
I. The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 5-8
We refer to pages 3-4 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position for this rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007