Appeal 2007-0620
Application 10/323,626
515 (CCPA 1964) (no unexpected result in omission of element and its
function). In this respect, we find no disclosure in Smith which limits the
teachings with respect to the reactor to the endothermic reaction exemplified
therein.
Thus, we are of the opinion that, as the Examiner concludes, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably selected the shell-and-tube
reactor of Smith modified to separately control the heat exchange medium as
the shell-and-tube reactor for Iwanaga’s process. We are not convinced
otherwise by Appellants’ contentions. We recognize, as Appellants point
out, Smith teaches the heat exchange medium flows through the reactor
concurrent to the reactant flow, and that Iwanaga prefers countercurrent flow
in this respect. The non-preferred embodiment thus apparent to one of
ordinary skill in this art from Iwanaga’s disclosure is concurrent flow of the
reactant and heat exchange medium which is the same flow taught in Smith.
Thus, for this reason and the modifications that one of ordinary skill in this
art would have reasonably made to Smith’s illustrated reactor discussed
above, the use of Smith’s reactor does not result in a change in the principle
of operation of Iwanaga as argued.
Accordingly, on this record, we are of the opinion that the Examiner
properly combined Iwanaga and Smith and concluded that one of ordinary
skill in this art following the combined teachings of the references would
have reasonably arrived at the claimed process encompassed by claim 1,
including all of the limitations thereof arranged as specified therein. Indeed,
the arrangement of the horizontal baffle or deflector plates arranged
horizontal to the longitudinal catalyst tubes illustrated in Smith’s Figs. 1 and
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013