Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain each of the rejections advanced on this appeal.
With respect to each of the Section 102 rejections, it is
the examiner’s position that both Podrebarac and Gildert
expressly teach all aspects of the here claimed process except
for the specific reactions recited in appealed claim 1(b)(i) and
(ii) wherein respectively thiophene is converted to n-butyl
mercaptan and mercaptans are reacted with diolefins to form
sulfide products. According to the examiner, these reactions
would inherently occur in the processes of the applied references
because the feed stock, catalyst and reaction conditions of these
processes correspond to those of the appellant’s claimed process.
The appellant contends that the examiner’s above noted
inherency position is not proper. In support of this view, the
appellant presents the following argument on pages 9 and 10 of
the brief:
[N]either of the reactions which are recited in present
claim 1 are disclosed or suggested by either reference.
There is a reason they do not occur. Why? The conditions
used in the reaction to hydrodesulfurize, particularly the
temperatures, are too harsh. In the present process the
lower zone is between 270 and 450oF and the upper
distillation zone between 130 to 270oF, whereas in ‘020
[i.e., Podrebarac] “The distillation column reactor is
advantageously used to react the heavier or higher boiling
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007