Appeal No. 2004-2118 Page 11
Application 09/329,502
that conventional porosity difference practice in selecting the
alkylation zone catalyst.
Unlike appellants (brief, page 10), we do not find that West
teaches that the same catalyst must “be employed” in both the
alkylation and transalkylation zones. Rather, West suggests that
molecular sieve catalysts according to the invention (that is,
hydrated molecular sieves) may be used in both zones. See, e.g.,
column 10, lines 19-22. Such catalysts need not be the same for
each zone. Indeed, West (column 3, lines 34+) describes a
variety of sieves that may be hydrated, including catalysts that
include silicalite and other materials as admitted by appellants
at page 3 of the specification to be conventional, for use in the
alkylation zone. In light of the above and for the reasons set
forth in the answers, we do not find appellants’ arguments
persuasive of any reversible error in the examiner’s obviousness
position as to representative claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, appellants also argue (brief,
page 10) that the narrower zeolite surface areas called for in
those claims would be impossible to obtain given the hydration of
West. However, for the reasons set forth above, appellants
simply have not established, on this record, that the hydration
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007