Appeal 2007-0736
Application 10/480,239
ruthenium catalyst with “particularly preferred” hydrogen at a temperature
of from 100 deg. to 500 deg. (col. 3, ll. 54-64).
12. The removal of the solvent step is performed at a temperature
“below 200˚C,” e.g., at ambient (see col. 5, ll. 32-33 (“water was removed
by a rotary evaporator”)); further the skilled artisan would have known to
keep the drying step below 200˚C “to avoid damaging the activity of the
catalyst.” (Answer 10.)
13. None of the references expressly teaches using “a halogen-free
aqueous solution” to make the claimed catalyst; however, the skilled artisan
would have known the advantages of using a halogen-free system to avoid
poisoning the catalyst, as evidenced by the prior art teachings. (See, e.g.,
Schuster, col. 1, ll. 36-40 (“chlorine (either covalently bonded or as
chlorine), poison[s] the catalyst and thus makes it impossible to reuse it”).)
14. The silicon dioxide support material disclosed in Shokal and
Setoyama can only be amorphous or crystalline, or a combination of these
two forms; thus, given the very small number of species, disclosure of
silicon dioxide is a disclosure of both “species,” amorphous silicon dioxide
and crystalline silicon dioxide. See In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 316-17,
197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978); In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681, 133 USPQ
275, 280 (CCPA 1962).
Other Findings
15. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of the three references in that each discloses a process for
hydrogenating an aromatic hydrocarbon using a ruthenium catalyst on an
inert support. (FFs 6-12.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013