Ex parte Nacamuli et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2001

08273933 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte GERALD J. NACAMULI, ROBERT A. INNES,
and ARNOLD J. GLOYN
__________
Appeal No. 1998-1067
Application No. 08/273,933
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the refusal of the
examiner to allow claims 31, 32 and 34-50 as amended
subsequent to the final rejection. These are all of the
claims remaining in the application.
Appeal No. 1998-1067
Application No. 08/273,933
2
The subject matter on appeal relates to a process for the
production of a benzene, toluene and xylene containing product
which contains a reduced amount of close-boiling non-
aromatics. The process includes the step of contacting a
toluene containing feed which includes about 0.2 wt.% to about
5 wt.% close-boiling non-aromatics in a disproportionation
zone with an acidic para-selective molecular sieve catalyst
under conditions such that the product contains a reduced
amount of close-boiling non-aromatics compared to the feed and
such that at least 40% of the xylene produced is para-xylene.
Further details of this appealed subject matter are set forth
in representative independent claim 31 which reads as follows:
31. A process for the production of a benzene, toluene
and xylene containing product which contains a reduced amount
of close-boiling non-aromatics, comprising:
(a) aromatizing a predominantly paraffinic feedstock
in an aromatization zone over a substantially
nonacidic aromatization catalyst comprising a Group
VIII metal on a molecular sieve support to produce
an aromatization product which comprises a toluene
containing feed which comprises at least about 70%
toluene and from at least about 0.2 wt% to about 5
wt% close-boiling non-aromatics;
(b) contacting the toluene containing feed in a
disproportionation zone with an acidic para-
selective molecular sieve catalyst under conditions
such that the product contains a reduced amount of
close-boiling non-aromatic compared to the feed and
Appeal No. 1998-1067
Application No. 08/273,933
3
such that at least 40% of the xylene produced is
para-xylene; and
(c) separating the product by distillation to
recover at least benzene and xylene fractions, each
of which contain less than 0.5 wt% close-boiling
non-aromatic impurities.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Bonacci et al. (Bonacci) 3,957,621 May 18,
1976
Kaeding 4,016,219 Apr. 5, 1977
Butter 4,067,919 Jan. 10, 1978
Haag et al. (Haag) 4,097,543 Jun. 27, 1978
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bonacci and Butter combined
with Kaeding and Haag. In the paragraph bridging pages 7 and
8 of the final office action (i.e., Paper No. 8), the examiner
expresses his obviousness conclusion in the following manner:
Therefore, in view of the difference(s) between
the subject matter as a whole sought to be patented
and the totality of the teaching(s) of prior art, as
established above, it would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains, to follow the teachings of Bonacci
(3,957,621) and Butter (4,067,919) combined with
Kaeding (4,016,219) and Haag(4,097,543), and
practice the same process with any toluene feed
stock, optionally containing other close boiling
non-aromatics (paraffins etc.) and use the same
catalyst for the conversion and call the process
Appeal No. 1998-1067
Application No. 08/273,933
4
“para-selective”. The consequent reduction of the
non-aromatics would have been expected since the
same conditions and catalysts are used for the
aromatization of the non-aromatics.
This rejection cannot be sustained.
As correctly argued by the appellants in their brief and
supported by the section 1.132 Mulaskey declaration of record,
the applied prior art contains no teaching or suggestion of
step (b) recited in appealed independent claim 31. More
specifically, the applied references contain no teaching or
suggestion of using an acidic para-selective molecular sieve
catalyst in a disproportionation zone under conditions such
that the product contains a reduced amount of close-boiling
non-aromatics and such that at least 40% of the xylene
produced is para-xylene as required in this step. We
recognize that certain of these references disclose using such
a catalyst in a disproportionation zone for producing para-
xylene. However, these references contain no suggestion of
also reducing the amount of close- boiling non-aromatics as
here claimed.
Appeal No. 1998-1067
Application No. 08/273,933
5
From our perspective, the examiner’s contrary view is
based fundamentally on conjecture and speculation. For
example, the examiner contends that the catalyst of Bonacci
would necessarily become para-selective during use and that
close-boiling non-aromatics contacting this catalyst would
necessarily be reduced in amount. It is our view, however,
that the record before us does not support this contention.
Even if the applied references were combined in such a
manner as to result in use of a para-selective catalyst in the
disproportionation zone of Bonacci, we agree with the
appellants’ argument that the here claimed process would not
be achieved. This is because the applied references simply
contain no teaching or suggestion of effecting contact in the
disproportionation zone under conditions such that the product
contains a reduced amount of close-boiling non-aromatics as
required in step (b) of the independent claim on appeal. As
correctly and repeatedly argued by the appellants in their
brief, it is only their own disclosure which teaches how to
achieve this reduction while also producing para-xylene as
here claimed.
Appeal No. 1998-1067
Application No. 08/273,933
6
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims as being
unpatentable over Bonacci and Butter combined with Kaeding and
Haag.
Appeal No. 1998-1067
Application No. 08/273,933
7
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Bradley R. Garris )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Thomas A. Waltz ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Paul Lieberman )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:tdl
Appeal No. 1998-1067
Application No. 08/273,933
8
Thomas G. Dejonghe
Chevron Corporation
Law Department, Patent Division
P.O. Box 7141
San Francisco, CA 94120-7141