Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
Gildert’s disclosure in lines 13-57 of column 6 and with
Podrebarac’s disclosure in lines 1-34 in column 6.
These many commonalities support the examiner’s inherency
position. This position is particularly supported by the fact
that the feed and products, especially the light naphtha overhead
product, of the first distillation column reactor in the here
claimed and prior art processes are all the same. This is
because the appellant does not explain and we do not
independently perceive how the prior art processes can react the
same feedstocks to yield the same products without involving the
same reactions as the appellant’s claimed process.
In this last mentioned regard, the appellant contends that
the conditions of the Podrebarac and Gildert processes are too
harsh to permit the reactions recited in appealed claim 1(b)(i)
and (ii). In support of this argument, the appellant refers to
the temperature ranges disclosed in his specification for the
upper and lower distillation zones of the here claimed first
distillation column reactor. However, this specification
disclosure (i.e., see lines 6-11 on page 11) does not teach or
even suggest that temperatures outside these ranges would prevent
the reactions under consideration from ocurring. Further, it is
significant that the lower zone temperature range overlaps the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007