Appeal No. 2004-2118 Page 13
Application 09/329,502
examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 9 and
further in view of the reasons set forth in the examiner’s
answers. Appellants additionally argue (brief, pages 11-13)
that Butler and West are not combinable since West requires the
same catalyst in both reactors. However, as also explained
above, appellants simply have not established that West is so
limited in terms of catalyst selection. We note that Butler
teaches that the use of a liquid or gas phase in the alkylation
zone are alternatives at least for certain feedstocks and
alkylating agents. See, e.g., page 2, lines 10-12, page 3,
lines 37-46 and page 4, lines 33-37 of Butler. Moreover, Butler
teaches that the same or different catalysts may be employed in
the separate alkylation and transalkylation zones. See, e.g.,
page 2, lines 39-42, and page 3, line 55 through page 4, line 7
of Butler.
With regard to appellants’ apparent reference to the subject
matter of claim 20 at page 13 of the brief, our disposition of
that claim and appellants’ separate comments relating thereto
follows from our disposition of the subject matter of claim 3, as
discussed above.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007