Appeal 2006-2675
Application 10/278,143
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to an alkylation process using a particular
catalyst including at least about 0.05 wt% sulfur. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process for alkylating a hydrocarbon feed which comprises
contacting the hydrocarbon feed to be alkylated with an alkylation agent in
the presence of a catalyst comprising a solid acid, 0.01 wt% to 1 wt% of a
hydrogenation component consisting essentially of one or more Group Vlll
noble metals, and at least about 0.05 wt% of sulfur, based on the total weight
of the catalyst composition and calculated as S.
The Examiner relies upon the following reference in the rejection of
claims on appeal:
Van Brugge EP 0,640,575 B1 May 14, 1997
Appellants rely upon the following reference in rebuttal:
J. Biswas, The Role of Deposited Poisons and Crystallite Surface
Structure in the Activity and Selectivity of Reforming Catalysts, 30(2) Catal.
Rev. – Sci. Eng. 161-247 (1988)
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Van Brugge.
We affirm.
OPINION
The Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness based
on the disclosure of Van Brugge. As found by the Examiner, Van Brugge
describes alkylating a hydrocarbon feed (paraffins such as isobutane) by
contacting the paraffins with an alkylation agent (olefin such as 2-butene) in
the presence of a solid acid catalyst (Answer 3; Van Brugge 2:49-50 and
Example 2). Van Brugge describes ion exchanging the zeolite of the catalyst
with a Group VIII noble metal in amounts within the claimed range
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007