Appeal No. 2004-1488
Application No. 09/768,733
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 4
We refer to the examiner’s position in regard to this
rejection as set forth on page 6 of the answer.
Appellants set forth their arguments on pages 11-14 of the
brief, and present some of the same arguments in the reply
brief.
On page 12 of the brief, appellants state that claim 4
depends upon claim 1, and argue that Kelley and Inwood fail to
suggest all the limitations of claim 1. Because appellants set
forth essentially the same arguments with regard to step (b) of
claim 1, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 4 for
the reasons, as discussed, supra.
Additionally, appellants argue that Kelley relates to a
dual step process, whereas Inwood teaches a single stage
process, and that Inwood emphasizes the drawbacks of a two-stage
system. We are unpersuaded by such argument because, as pointed
out by the examiner on page 6 of the answer, Inwood discloses
that hydrogenation processes that employ two catalysts can
equivalently use two separate reactors or a single reactor in
which the two catalysts are disposed. Hence, as concluded by
the examiner, it would have obvious to have modified the process
of Kelley by utilizing one reactor in which both catalysts are
disposed, thereby resulting a final catalyst bed containing the
second zone catalyst as suggested by Inwood because it is more
economical to employ a single reactor.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 4.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007