Appeal 2007-0620
Application 10/323,626
Smith US 3,807,963 Apr. 30, 1974
Wanka US 3,871,445 Mar. 18, 1975
Sawada US 5,292,904 Mar. 8, 1994
Iwanaga US 6,713,035 B1 Mar. 30, 2004
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Br. 4), the grounds all advanced on appeal:
claims 1 through 32 and 37 through 39 as unpatentable over Iwanaga in view
of Smith (Answer 3-5); and
claims 33 through 36 as unpatentable over Iwanaga in view of Smith as
applied to claims 1 through 32 and 37 through 39 further in view of Sawada
and Wanka (id. 5-6).
Appellants argue the claims of the first ground of rejection as a group
as well as claim 17 separately (Br. 5 and 9). Appellants argue the claims of
the second ground of rejection as a group (id. 10). Thus, we decide this
appeal based on appealed claims 1, 17, and 33 as representative of the
grounds of rejection and Appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
With respect to claims 1 and 17, the Examiner contends Iwanaga
would have disclosed the gas-phase oxidation of hydrogen chloride by
means of a gas stream comprising molecular oxygen in the presence of a
fixed-bed catalyst is an exothermic reaction which results in the formation of
hot spots in the catalyst tubes that must be controlled (Answer 3-4). The
Examiner contends that Iwanaga discloses “that in the industrial process, a
shell-and-tube heat exchanger type fixed bed multi-tube reactor may be
used” (id. 4). The Examiner contends the difference between the claimed
process and Iwanaga’s process is the latter “does not specifically disclose the
deleted from this claim in the Amendment filed August 25, 2005
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013