Appeal No. 2004-1488
Application No. 09/768,733
Beginning on page 5 of the brief, appellants argue
that claim 1 requires, inter alia, the step of “cooling the
hydrotreated effluent.” On page 6 of the brief, appellants
argue that Kelley is silent about “cooling the hydrotreated
effluent” subsequent to the claimed step of “contacting the
feed stock with hydrogen for hydrotreating and obtaining a
hydrotreated effluent”, and before the claimed step of
“contacting the cooled hydrotreated effluent with
hydrotreating catalyst at conditions being effective for
conversion of polyaromatic hydrocarbons to monoaromatic
compounds”. Appellants set forth similar arguments in the
reply brief.
In response, on pages 6-7 of the answer, the examiner
recognizes that Kelley teaches that the total effluent from
hydrofiner 10 can be transferred to hydrocracker 12 without
intervening cooling, condensation or separation of ammonia
and hydrogen sulfide generated in the hydrofiner (col.4,
lines 26-30 of Kelley). The examiner also points to column
6 of Kelly and states that the disclosure found there
clearly teaches that many variations are contemplated, one
being that “the hydrofining and hydrocracking operations
may be carried out non-integrally with intervening
treatment of the hydrofiner effluent to remove ammonia,
hydrogen sulfide and like.”. See column 6, lines 25-36 of
Kelley. The examiner also points out that Kelley
specifically states that the hydrocracker 12 can be
operated at substantially reduced temperatures and/or
higher spaced velocities. See col. 6, lines 25-36 of
Kelly. Answer, page 7.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007