Appeal 2007-0620
Application 10/323,626
With respect to claim 1, Appellants reply Iwanaga teaches the hot spot
problem can be solved by suppressing hot spot activity in the catalyst-
packed layer and does not teach the uncompensated use of a shell-and-tube
heat exchanger type fixed bed reactor, such compensation taught at column
6, line 17, to column 8, line 27, arguing there is no advantaged suggested by
the reference to select the uncompensated reactor (Reply Br. 1-4).
Appellants contend with respect to column 6, lines 22-25, 28-30, and 32-33,
and Example 1, that Iwanaga does not teach a tube-and-shell type reactor
without a compensating jacket and heating medium control, and further
teaches that a tubular reactor with a jacket is sufficient (id. 4-5). Appellants
contend Smith does not teach the use of the baffle containing tube-and-shell
reactor with any possible exothermic reaction, nor that an improved heat
exchange rate results from the use of baffles (id. 5-7). With respect to claim
17, Appellants reply Smith does not disclose the claimed gaps, contradicts
easy removal by securing the catalyst tubes in supporting plates, and use of
the same material for baffles, end plates, and tube eliminates the expansion
problem (id. 8).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in combining the
references as applied, and based thereon, whether one of ordinary skill in
this art would have modified the shell-and-tube reactor of Smith with respect
to the flow of the heat exchange medium, and would have used the shell-
and-tube reactor of Smith as the shell-and-tube reactor in the process of
Iwanaga.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013