Appeal 2007-0620 Application 10/323,626 Appellants contend Iwanaga does not suggest the need for horizontal baffles in the chlorine producing process for any reason, disclosing that a tube with surrounding jacket controls the temperature in the reaction zone (id. 6). Appellants contend Smith teaches exothermic reactions using inert diluents, thermally stable reactants or product components, particularly in the dehydrogenation of alkylated aromatic hydrocarbons, and would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such baffles in a chlorine producing process as disclosed by Iwanaga (id. 5-6). Appellants contend the combination of Iwanaga and Smith requires a change in the basic principle of operation of Iwanaga’s process because Smith teaches bypass 13 transports a portion of the heat exchange medium from conduit 12 back to the heat exchange chamber, thus inserting Iwanaga’s heat exchange medium, including molten salt, into the hydrogen chloride and oxygen gas reaction mixture (id. 6-7). Appellants contend one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used Smith’s horizontal baffles in the jacket of the tubular reactor of Iwanaga as it would prevent the preferred feature of the heat exchange flowing from the bottom to the top of the jacket, and thus Iwanaga teaches away from the combination (id. 7-8). With respect to claim 17, Appellants contend the required gap in the claimed range between the catalyst tube and the deflection plate or baffle is not suggested by the combination of references because Iwanaga does not disclose a horizontal baffle and the catalyst tube and baffle are connected in Smith (Br. 9). With respect to claim 33, Appellants contend Wanka 2 A discussion of Sawada is not necessary to our decision. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-04, 190 USPQ 425, 426-28 (CCPA 1976). 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013