Appeal No. 2006-1551
Application No. 10/015,863
nevertheless evinces that it was known in the prior art to use
multiple catalyst reactors as well multiple catalyst beds for
performing various catalytic reactions under differing reaction
conditions. In light of this evidence, we share the examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious for an artisan to
replace Fletcher’s first and second hydrodesulfurization catalyst
beds with first and second hydrodesulfurization catalyst reactors
based on a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the
desired dehydrodesulfurization via a technique (i.e., the use of
multiple catalyst reactors) known in the prior art (at least
conceptually). See In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d
1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Furthermore, the artisan would have
recognized that greater parameter manipulation and control would
have been possible using separate catalyst reactors as opposed to
multiple catalyst beds in a single reactor and accordingly would
have been motivated to modify Fletcher’s process in the manner
proposed in order to obtain this advantage. Finally, while the
appellant may be correct that first and second catalyst reactors
would not be equivalent in all respects to first and second
catalyst beds, an artisan would have recognized the former as
being an acceptable alternate to the latter vis-á-vis achieving
the hydrodesulfurization desired by Fletcher.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007