Appeal No. 2006-2428 Page 4
Application No. 10/362,500
associated with SO2 disposal. Id. Specifically, the specification discloses that SO2 in a
“less-than-stoichiometric” amount has a catalytic effect on the chlorinating step wherein
compounds of formula (II) are converted to compounds of formula (III). Page 8. Thus,
examples P1 and P2 on pages 11-12 of the specification demonstrate that the presence
of a relatively small amount of SO2 markedly increases the yield when a compound of
formula (II) is converted to a compound of formula (III) using chlorine gas.
“Catalytic amounts [of SO2] are to be understood as less-than-stoichiometric
amounts based on the starting material of formula (II).” Page 8. The catalytic amount
of SO2 may be added to the reaction medium in gaseous form, or in the form of a
compound which releases SO2, such as SO2Cl2. Id. SO2Cl2 may also be used as the
chlorinating agent. Id. “In a preferred variant of [the] process . . . , some or all of the
SO2Cl2 required for the catalysis is first metered in and only then is the chlorinating
agent, preferably Cl2, added.” Id.
Discussion
1. Claim construction
Claims 1-6 are on appeal. Appellants argue claims 1 and 5 together and do not
separately argue claims 3 and 6.1 Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 will therefore stand or fall
together. Appellants argue claims 2 and 4 separately; these claims do not stand or fall
1 The Appeal Brief actually states that “claim 3 is not anticipated . . . because the chlorination reaction
step does not proceed . . . in the claimed amount of SO2 of from 1 mol% to 50 mol%, based on the
amount of (II).” Page 5 (emphasis in original); see also page 10 (repeating the argument regarding “claim
3” in response to the obviousness rejection). However, claim 4, not claim 3, recites the limitation requiring
“SO2 . . . in an amount of from 1 mol % to 50 mol %, based on the starting material of formula (II).” Thus,
despite the inadvertent error in the Brief, it is clear that Appellants intended to separately argue the
patentability of the limitations in claim 4, not claim 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007