Appeal 2007-2549
Application 10/163,206
determination of obviousness include: (1) the scope and content of the prior
art, (2) any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, (3)
the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) relevant objective evidence of
obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at
1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
A. The Examiner's position
The Examiner found that Broekhoven differed from the claimed
invention in not disclosing that the saturated hydrocarbon in the catalyst
regeneration process was a saturated C8 alkane, i.e., a product of the
akylation reaction (FF 24). The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Broekhoven process
by using C8 alkane, a hydrocarbon formed by alkylation of isobutane with
butene, as the hydrocarbon regeneration solvent, because Yigong discloses
that C8 alkane can be used to regenerate the catalyst (Answer 3, ¶ 2).
B. Appellants' position
Appellants argue that Broekhoven removes formed alkylate product
from the reactor before catalyst regeneration is started in contrast to the
claimed invention (Br. 3, ¶ 4). Appellants further argue that Yigong
removes formed alkylate product from the reactor by flushing with N2 before
regenerating the catalyst (Br. 4, ¶ 3). Therefore, according to Appellants,
the most essential difference between the teachings of Broekhoven and
Yigong and the claimed invention is that Appellants’ open process alone
recycles the formed alkylate product for catalyst regeneration (Br. 5, ¶ 5).
Appellants also contend that there is no reasonable expectation that a
process based on the combined teachings of Broekhoven and Yigong would
be successful because Broekhoven and Yigong each regenerate catalyst by a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013