Ex Parte Dindi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

12914061 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/914,061 10/28/2010 Hasan Dindi CH3329USNA 5100
23906 7590 12/23/2016
E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
LEGAL PATENT RECORDS CENTER
CHESTNUT RUN PLAZA 721/2340
974 CENTRE ROAD, P.O. BOX 2915
WILMINGTON, DE 19805
EXAMINER
DOYLE, BRANDI M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTO-Legal.PRC@dupont.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HASAN DINDI and LUIS EDUARDO MURILLO
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
Technology Center 1700
Before JULIA HEANEY, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the invention as relating to a process for treating a
heavy hydrocarbon feed to obtain more valuable hydrocarbons. Spec. 3:11—
4:5. The product mixture can be sold as heating oil or further processed
into, for example, additives for gasoline or other value-adding products. Id.
at 14:29-15:2; 22:15—17. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added
to certain key recitations, is the only independent claim on appeal and is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A process to treat a heavy hydrocarbon feed comprising:
(a) contacting the feed with (i) a diluent and (ii)
hydrogen to produce a feed/diluent/hydrogen mixture, wherein
the hydrogen is dissolved in the mixture to provide a liquid feed;
(b) contacting the feed/diluent/hydrogen mixture with a
catalyst, in a liquid-full fixed bed reactor of plug flow or
tubular design, to produce a product mixture; and
(c) recycling a portion of the product mixture as a
recycle product stream by combining the recycle product stream
with the feed to provide at least a portion of the diluent in step
(a) at a recycle ratio in a range of from about 1 to about 10;
wherein the feed has an asphaltene content of at least 3%,
based on the total weight of the feed; and wherein hydrogen is
fed in an equivalent amount of at least 160 1/1 (900 scf/bbl);
and wherein the diluent comprises, consists essentially of, or
consists of recycled product stream.
Appeal Br.2 18 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed August 14,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed January 5, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”),
2
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
Simpson US 4,548,710
Ackerson et al. US 2006/0144756 A1
(hereinafter “Ackerson”)
Ancheyta Juarez et al. US 2007/0187294 Al
(hereinafter “Ancheyta Juarez”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal* * 3:
Rejection 1. Claims 1—4, 6, 8—10, 12—19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ackerson in view of Ancheyta Juarez. Ans. 2—3.
Rejection 2. Claims 5,7, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ackerson in view of Ancheyta Juarez and further in view
of Simpson. Id. at 5.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After having
considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’
contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error
Oct. 22, 1985
July 6, 2006
Aug. 16, 2007
the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 3, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed July 29, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Appellants state that claim 23 was previously addressed by the Examiner
and should be addressed on appeal. Appeal Br. 3. This statement appears to
be an error because the Claims Appendix does not include claim 23,
Appellants make no arguments concerning claim 23, and the Final Office
Action does not address a claim 23. We therefore do not address claim 23.
3
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
except as otherwise explained below, and to the extent we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections, we do so for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection 1, claims E 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22. The
Examiner rejects claims 1—4, 6, 8—10, 12—19, 21, and 22 as obvious over
Ackerson in view of Ancheyta Juarez. Ans. 2—3. Appellants do not
separately argue claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, or 22. We
therefore limit our initial discussion below to claim 1. Claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 13,
14, 16, 17, 19, 21, or 22 stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Appellants present separate arguments for claims
2, 3, 8, 12, 15, and 18, and we address those claims separately.
The Examiner finds that Ackerson teaches the recited process of claim
1 except that Ackerson does not teach that the feed has an asphaltene content
of at least 3% based on the total weight of the feed. Ans. 3 (providing
citations to Ackerson). The Examiner finds that Ancheyta Juarez discloses a
process to treat heavy petroleum hydrocarbons having a high percentage of
asphaltenes and that it would have been obvious to employ the process of
Ackerson to process a feed with high asphaltene content. Id. at 4. The
Examiner finds that utilizing Ackerson to process a feed with a high
asphaltene content would have many benefits including, for example,
reducing coking, smaller and simpler reactors, and increased safety. Id. at 7.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill would not have
employed Ackerson to process a heavy feed with high asphaltene content
because although Ancheyta Juarez processes such material, the Ancheyta
4
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
Juarez process is very different. Appellants persuasively explain that
Ancheyta Juarez employs a trickle bed process that includes a hydrogen gas
phase whereas both Ackerson and claim 1 make use of a liquid-full process
that includes no gas. Appeal Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2-4; see also Spec. 11:29-
31 (“By ‘liquid-full reactor’ is meant the reactor is substantially free of a gas
phase.”). Appellants further argue that a person of ordinary skill would have
expected that specialized processes and/or equipment such as those
described by Ancheyta Juarez or Van der Toom4 would be required to
process high-asphaltene oil. Appeal Br. 7—8.
Appellants’ arguments do not establish harmful Examiner error
because the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding
that the combined teachings of Ackerson and Ancheyta Juarez suggest that
the process of Ackerson could treat high-asphaltene hydrocarbons. Ans. 8—
9. Most importantly, Ackerson states that its processes can be used with a
“resid” feedstock. Ans. 8; Ackerson | 56 (explaining Figure 2 depiction of a
resid hydrotreater), || 167, 168, 172 (examples for treating resids). In this
context, a person of skill would understand that a resid is a residual oil: “A
liquid or semiliquid product resulting from the distillation of petroleum and
containing largely asphaltic hydrocarbons.” Richard J. Lewis, Sr., Hawley’s
Condensed Chemical Dictionary 963 (1997). Consistent with this
understanding, Appellants state that resid is “a generic term by itself
referring to residues from a distillation column.” Reply Br. 4. Appellants
further state that a resid “may have or may not have asphaltene content of at
4 Appellants refer to Great Britain Patent No. 1,232,173, November 18,
1969, issued to Van Der Toom, et al. (“Van Der Toom”). The Examiner
does not rely on Van Der Toom for any rejection.
5
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
least 3%.” Id. Ackerson does not indicate that there is any kind of resid
feedstock to which its process is not applicable. Thus, a preponderance of
the evidence supports that a person of ordinary skill would have understood
Ackerson’s teachings as applicable to resid feedstock including resid
feedstock having 3% or more asphaltene content.
The Examiner’s finding that a person of skill would have understood
Ackerson as being appropriate for processing feedstock having 3% or more
asphaltene content is further reinforced by evidence establishing that
Ancheyta Juarez teaches the processing of feedstock with very high
asphaltene content (for example, 12.4%) and operates under similar
temperature and pressure conditions as Ackerson. Ans. 3, 4, 7—9; Ancheyta
Juarez | 62, Table 1.
Appellants also argue that Ackerson and Ancheyta Juarez do not teach
or fairly suggest that the hydrogen amount of at least 160 nl/1 (900 scf/bbl)
can be dissolved in the solution of high-asphaltene oils for a liquid-full
process. Ans. 9. As the Examiner finds, however, Ackerson teaches that
“[t]he type and amount of diluent added, as well as the reactor conditions
can be set so that all of the hydrogen required in the hydroprocessing
reactions is available in solution.” Ackerson 114; see also Ans. 9—10. In
other words, Ackerson teaches that a person of skill would have been
capable of assessing how much hydrogen is required for a given reaction
(i.e., “all of the hydrogen required in the hydroprocessing reactions”) and
would have been capable of adjusting type and amount of diluent (the
diluent having high hydrogen solubility relative to the oil feed) to ensure that
all hydrogen is available in solution. Ackerson || 13—14. The Examiner’s
finding in this regard is consistent with the Appellants’ stating that “a
6
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
POSITA understood that required hydrogen amount would vary when the
compositions and properties of the desired products were different. . .
Reply Br. 6. The Examiner’s finding that hydrogen flow rate is a result-
effective variable supports a conclusion of obviousness. See In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[Djiscovery of an optimum value of a
result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of
the art.”); In re Alter, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Appellants further argue that applying Ackerson’s process to
Ancheyta Juarez’s system would render Ackerson unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. Appeal Br. 10. As explained above, however, Ackerson
already suggests that its processing—without needing modification—can
process resids, and such resids would include resids having high asphaltene
content. See also Ans. 10. Thus, Ackerson itself suggests that it can process
the feedstock of Ancheyta Juarez, and the evidence does not support that
processing such feedstock would destroy the benefits of Ackerson.
Because Appellants do not identify reversible error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8—10, 12—19, 21, and 22.
Rejection 1, claims 2 and 3. Claims 2 and 3 recite the process of
claim 1 wherein “hydrogen is fed in an equivalent amount of 180-530 1/1
(1000-3000 scf/bbl)” and wherein “hydrogen is fed in an equivalent amount
of 360/530 1/1 (2000-3000 scf/bbl)” respectively. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims
App’x).
Appellants argue that feed rates taught by Ancheyta Juarez do not
apply because Ancheyta Juarez teaches a two-stage process where the total
7
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
feed rate is higher than the feed recited. As explained above, however, the
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that
Ackerson teaches that hydrogen feed rate is a result-effective variable. A
preponderance of the evidence supports that a person of skill in the art
through routine optimization would have reached an appropriate hydrogen
feed rate for a given process. We thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2 and 3.
Rejection 1, claim 8. Claim 8 recites “[t]he process of claim 1
wherein the catalyst is a hydroprocessing catalyst comprising a metal
selected from the group consisting of nickel and cobalt, and combinations
thereof, and the catalyst is supported on a mono- or mixed-metal oxide, a
zeolite, or a combination of two or more thereof.” The Examiner found that
Ancheyta Juarez teaches the recited catalyst, and Appellants do not dispute
this finding. Final Act. 4; Appeal Br. 13.
Appellants argue that because Ancheyta Juarez teaches a different
process, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not use the same catalysts
without undue experimentation. Appeal Br. 13. Appellants’argument,
however, is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Rather,
Ackerson suggests that the same catalysts used in Ancheyta Juarez could be
employed in its process. In particular, Ackerson suggests use of a supported
Fischer-Tropsch catalyst or other metal catalysts. Ackerson || 187, 190.
Classic Fisher-Tropsch catalysts include “metallic catalysts such as iron,
cobalt, or nickel. . . .” Richard J. Lewis, Sr., Hawley’s Condensed
Chemical Dictionary 502 (1997). The Examiner’s obviousness conclusion is
well supported by the evidence because use of the Ancheyta Juarez catalysts
in the Ackerson process would be no more than predictable use of a prior art
8
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
element according to established function. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Because Appellants identify no harmful error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
Rejection 1, claim 12. Claim 12 recites “[t]he process of claim 1
wherein the recycle ratio is 1 to 5.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App’x).
Appellants argue that Ackerson discloses a recycle ratio of 2.5 to treat
deasphalted oil and that “a POSITA understands that if 700-2400 nl/1
hydrogen were fed to the Ackerson paragraph [0168] process, a recycle ratio
much higher than 5 would be necessary to dissolve ah hydrogen in the liquid
solution.” Appeal Br. 13—14.
Consistent with Appellants’ argument, Ackerson teaches that recycle
ratio is a function of hydrogen needed for the process at hand. See, e.g.,
Ackerson H 13, 14, 109, Fig. 7j see also Ans. 3 14,4117, 9. As explained
above, calculation of hydrogen feed rate is a result-effective variable. Thus,
the recycle rate necessary (i.e., the amount of diluent available) is also a
result-effective variable. Ackerson 114 (“The type and amount of diluent
added . . . can be set so that ah of the hydrogen required ... is available in
solution.”). Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s conclusion that reaching a recycle ratio of 1 to 5 would have
been obvious in view of the teachings of Ackerson and Ancheyta Juarez.
Ans. 3. We thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
Rejection 1, claim 15. Claim 15 recites “[t]he process of claim 1
wherein the fixed bed reactor is a single packed bed reactor.” Appeal Br. 20
(Claims App’x). Appellants argue that Ackerson Juarez selects a two-stage
process that requires two reactors. Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner, however,
9
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
applies the process of Ackerson to claim 15. Ans. 4. The preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Ackerson discloses a
single packed bed reactor (Ans. 4 112; see also e.g., Ackerson || 14, 23, 42,
Fig. 18), and Appellants do not persuasively dispute this finding of fact.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
Rejection 1, claim 18. Claim 18 recites “[t]he process of claim 1
wherein temperature ranges from about 250°C to about 450°C; pressure
ranges from 3.45 to 17.25 MPa (200 to 2500 psig), and hydrocarbon feed
(LHSV) ranges from 0.1 to 10 hr'1.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App’x).5
Appellants argue that the Examiner asserts that Ancheyta Juarez discloses
similar reaction conditions (Final Act. 4 12) but that a person of skill in the
art would not have used these same conditions when implementing a liquid
full process. Appeal Br. 15.
Evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Ackerson teaches
pressure and temperature conditions that overlap those recited in claim 15.
Ans. 8 (citing Ackerson || 167—185, 190). The Examiner does not,
however, address why one of skill in the art would have known to utilize
“hydrocarbon feed (LHSV) ranges from 0.1 to 10 hr'1” when utilizing a
liquid full process such as that of Ackerson. See, e.g., Ans. 4 | 8 (citing only
the feed rate of Ancheyta Juarez); Final Act. 4 112 (same). We therefore do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to
consider whether any evidence exists that supports that feed rate is a result-
5 LHSV is liquid hourly space velocity: “volumetric rate of the liquid feed
divided by the volume of the catalyst.” Spec. 15:5—7.
10
Appeal 2015-007327
Application 12/914,061
effective variable. We decline to make new findings in this regard for the
first time on appeal.
Rejection 2, claims 5, 7, If and 20. The Examiner rejects claims 5,
7, 11, and 20 as obvious over Ackerson in view of Ancheyta Juarez and
further in view of Simpson. Ans. at 5. Appellants argue that this rejection is
in error based upon these claims being dependent on claim 1. Appeal Br. 16.
Because, as explained above, Appellants identify no reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5,7, 11, and 20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1—17 and 19—22. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11
Notice of References Cited
Application/Control No.
12/914,061
Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Hasan Dindi et al.
Examiner
Brandi Doyle
Art Unit
1700
Page 1 of 1
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
*
DOCUMENT NO. DATE NAME CLASS SUBCLASS
DOCUMENT
SOURCE **
APS OTHER
□ A □ □
□ B □ □
□ C □ □
□ D □ □
□ E □ □
□ F □ □
□ G □ □
□ H □ □
□ 1 □ □
□ J □ □
□ K □ □
□ L □ □
□ M □ □
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
*
DOCUMENT NO. DATE COUNTRY NAME CLASS SUBCLASS
DOCUMENT
SOURCE**
APS OTHER
□ N □ □
□ O □ □
□ P □ □
□ Q □ □
□ R □ □
□ S □ □
□ T □ □
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* DOCUMENT (Including Author, Title Date, Source, and Pertinent Pages)
DOCUMENT
SOURCE **
APS OTHER
□ U Richard J. Lewis, Sr., Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary 502, 963 (1997). □ □
□ V □ □
□ w □ □
□ X □ □
*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 707.05(a).)
**APS encompasses any electronic search i.e. text, image, and Commercial Databases.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 03-98Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 16
Hawley's
lonp^w •
CtiLiVHCAL
DICTIONA '
Richard J. Lewis, Sr.
I h 11 t onn t h Edition
This text is printed on acid-free paper. ©
Copyright © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, scanning or otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108
of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written
permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate
per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,
MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4744. Requests to the Publisher
for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012,
(212) 850-6011, fax (212) 850-6008, E-mail: PERMREQ@WILEY.COM.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Condensed chemical dictionary.
Hawley's condensed chemical dictionary.— 13th ed./revised by
Richard J. Lewis, Sr.
p. cm.
ISBN 0-471-29205-2 (hardcover)
I. Chemistry-Dictionaries. I. Hawley, Gessner Goodrich. 1905-1983.
II. Lewis, Richard J., Sr. III. Title.
QD5.C5 1997
540'.3—dc2l 97-35762
CIP
Printed in the United States of America
FISCHER-HEPP REARRANGEMENT 502
Fischer-Hepp rearrangement. Rearrangement
of secondary aromatic nitrosamines to p-nitrosoar-
ylamines.
Fischer indole synthesis. Formation of indoles
on heating aryl hydrazones of aldehydes or ketones
in the presence of catalysts such as zinc chloride,
or other Lewis acids, or proton acids.
Fischer oxazole synthesis. Condensation of
equimolar amounts of aldehyde cyanohydrins and
aromatic aldehydes in dry ether in the presence of
dry hydrochloric acid.
Fischer peptide synthesis. Formation of poly­
peptides by treatment of an a-chloro or a-bromo
acyl chloride with an amino acid ester, hydrolysis
to the acid, and conversion to a new acid chloride
that is again condensed with a second amino acid
ester, and so on. The terminal chloride is finally
converted to an amino group with ammonia.
Fischer phenylhydrazine synthesis.
Formation of arylhydrazines by reduction of diazo
compounds with excess sodium sulfite and hydrol­
ysis of the substituted hydrazine sulfonic acid salt
with hydrochloric acid. The process is a standard
industrial method for production of arylhydrazines.
Fischer phenylhydrazone and osazone reac­
tion. Formation of phenylhydrazones and osa-
zones by heating sugars with phenylhydrazine in
dilute acid.
Fischer-Speier esterification method.
Esterification of acids by refluxing with excess al­
cohol in the presence of hydrochloric acid or other
acid catalysts.
Fischer’s reagent. A reagent used as a test for
sugars.
Preparation: Three parts of sodium acetate and two
parts of phenylhydrazine hydrochloride in 20 parts
of water.
Note: Do not confuse with Karl Fischer reagent.
Fischer’s salt. See cobalt potassium nitrite.
Fischer-Tropsch process. Synthesis of liquid or
gaseous hydrocarbons or their oxygenated deriva­
tives from the carbon monoxide and hydrogen mix­
ture (synthesis gas) obtained by passing steam over
hot coal. The synthesis is carried out with metallic
catalysts such as iron, cobalt, or nickel at high tem­
perature and pressure. The process wus developed
in Germany in 1923 by F. Fischer and H. Tropsch
and was used there lor making synthetic fuels bc-
cess is being used rather extensively in a mintht
locations. Easing of the petroleum crisis Iuin let
to diminish conversion activity in the U.S,
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. (Synthol pmg
Oxo synthesis). Synthesis of hydrocarbons,
phatic alcohols, aldehydes, and ketones by the
alytic hydrogenation of carbon monoxide using
riched synthesis gas from passage of steam t
heated coke. The ratio of products varies with (
ditions. The high-pressure Synthol process g
mainly oxygenated products, and addition of
fins in the presence of cobalt catalyst (Oxo syn
sis) produces aldehydes. Normal-pressure synlh
leads mainly to petroleum-like hydrocarbons,
fisetin. (3,7,3'-tetrahydroxyflavone). C, .,11
See flavanol.
Fisher’s solution. See physiological suit |(
tion.
fish glue. An adhesive derived from the skllH
commercial fish (chiefly cod). A ton of skins
about 50 gal liquid glue. Bond strength on W09
approximately 2500 psi, pH approximately
Compatible with animal glues, some dextrlnSi It
polyvinyl acetate emulsions, and rubber !|
Chief applications are in gummed tape, CM!
blueprint paper, and letterpress printing platet,
glue can be made light sensitive by adding Ml
nium bichromate and water insoluble by UV1
ation, hence its usefulness in the photoongfSI
process. -4
See adhesive. 1
fish-liver oil. An oil containing a high persMH
of vitamin A. High-potency livers, aN front II
shark, and halibut, contain from 100,00m
1,500,000 A units/g. The oil is extracted by OMM
the livers under low-pressure steam und rMMH
the oil, which floats on the condensate. UvjB
low oil content are processed with a weak m|B
of sodium hydroxide or sodium curbonatt, (j(fl
extracts the oil in emulsified form. iS
Use: Medicine and dietary supplement,
See fish oil. jl
fish meal. A fishery by-product consisting flfl
daily of processed scrap from the filleting sp|!■
or from whole fish. In the dry proceNK, thglfl
from cod, halibut, and haddock head* li
grated and dried. The oil and protein* am wM
retained. In the wet process, the whole tilth (■
menhaden und pilchard) urc used. These MVljH
cooked und run through u screw prcNN to rariWW
oil. The resulting mcul is then dried and PiiMM
962
achers of
fats from
insoluble
lal matter
aste con-
figh-tem-
s, release
for hot-
the lubri-
igs.
is and die
er chains
ss.
creted by
irdling of
)00 times
is yellow
ilty taste;
ally solu-
er lining)
;en made
es.
tract con-
on of ca-
insect or
as food,
lfactory),
•epellents
i oil, di­
oxalate,
one is the
toxic and
ino com-
orophene
nate and
ainst rab-
icetate or
Bird re-
his sense
at gener-
hthalene.
ini com­
ical nature, will not mix or blend with another sub­
stance. All hydrophobic materials have water-re­
pellent properties due largely to differences in
surface tension or electric charges, e.g., oils, fats,
waxes, and certain types of plastics. Silicone resin
coatings can keep water from penetrating masonry
by lining the pores, not by filling them; they will
not exclude water under pressure.
replacement. See substitution.
replication. Making a reverse image of a surface
by means of an impression on or in a receptive ma­
terial; usually applied to microscopic techniques l or
obtaining plastic replicas of observed objects. In
biochemistry, the term refers to reproduction of the
DNA molecule, which is composed of two inter­
locking chains of nucleotides (the double helix
structure elucidated by Watson and Crick in 1953),
It reproduces itself by forming two identical daugh­
ter molecules, each of which receives one of the
two chains of the original molecule, the other In
each case being synthesized from nucleic acitN by
enzymes (DNA polymerases). In the oversimplified
drawing below the solid lines are the strands of the
original molecule, and the broken lines are the syn­
thesized strands:
parent DNA daughters
+
The chemical mechanisms in replication ttra RUM
complex than previously thought; 12 15 pmMlM
are involved as well as several enzymes.
See deoxyribonucleic acid; genetic code. jy
Reppe process. Any of several processes I
ing reaction of acetylene (I) with fomtnldehydl]
produce 2-butync-l,4-diol which can he COIN
to butadiene; (2) with formaldehyde underdid
conditions to produce propargyl alcohol Midi
this, ally) alcohol; (3) with hydrogen cyMlidij
yield acrylonitrile; (4) with alcohols to glvt1
ethers; (5) with amines or phenols to give vll
rivatives; (6) with carbon monoxide end nil
give esters of acrylic acid; (7) by polyinerjl
produce cyclooctutetraenc; and (It) with ['
make resins. The use of catalysts, preuttlM t
30 atm, and special techniques to avoid Of t
explosions urc important factors In IhtM]
963 RESIN, NATURAL
plutonium by separating them from each other and
from the fission products formed in the reactor. The
Purex process is the accepted procedure used for
this purpose. The spent fuel is dissolved in nitric
acid; separation is effected by solvent extraction
with tributyl phosphate, ion-exchange reactions,
and precipitation. The reclaimed uranium-235 and
plutonium are sent to fuel fabrication plants for re­
use. The fission product waste is evaporated and
stored. Another method, called the Civex process,
has been proposed to prevent theft of plutonium;
here the mixture of waste products, uranium iso­
topes, and plutonium is not separated. Since its plu­
tonium content is only 20% it could not be used for
weapons; the mixture is suitable for fast breeder
reactors. Serious radiation hazards are involved in
reprocessing and require use of appropriate shield­
ing and remote-control handling procedures. Stor­
age of the radioactive waste also presents a long-
range problem that has not yet been satisfactorily
solved. There are no commercial reprocessing
plants operational in the U.S., though there are sev­
eral in Europe.
See radioactive waste; breeder.
reprography. A coined name for the technique of
reproducing drawings, blueprints, and typographic
matter by the use of photosensitized papers, or
polyester sheeting, which may be coated with diazo
dyes. The process has broad potential in the pho­
tocopying field and in communications technology.
It involves colloid and surface chemistry, ink-paper
interactions, and unusual imaging techniques.
Research octane number (RON). See octane
number.
resene. The unsaponifiable component of rosin
and other natural resins.
reserpine.
CAS: 50-55-5. C33H40N2O9- An alkaloid.
Properties: White or pale-buff to slightly yellowish;
odorless powder; darkens slowly on exposure to
light and darkens more rapidly in solution. Mp
264—265C (decomposes). Insoluble in water;
slightly soluble in alcohol; soluble in chloroform
and benzene.
Derivation: From Kauwnlfia Nernenlina.
“Resicure” [Ozark-Mahoning]. TM for a se­
ries of epoxy curing agents.
residual oil. A liquid or semiliquid product re­
sulting from the distillation of petroleum and con­
taining largely asphaltic hydrocarbons. Also known
as asphaltum oil, liquid asphalt, black oil, petro­
leum tailings, and residuum. Combustible.
Use: Roofing compounds, hot-melt adhesives, fric­
tion tape, sealants, heating oil for large buildings,
factories, etc.
See fuel oil.
Note: Gasoline of 94 octane can be produced from
residual oil in a high-temperature catalytic process,
thus increasing the yield of gasoline from a barrel
of crude by 33% when full-scale production is
achieved.
“Resimene” [Monsanto]. TM for melamine
and ureaformaldehyde resins. Supplied in organic
liquid solutions. The melamine is also available in
water-alcohol and soluble, spray-dry powders.
Use: Paint, varnish, lacquer for automobiles, ma­
chinery, appliances, construction, electronics, mis­
siles, chemicals, pulp and paper.
resin. A semisolid or solid complex amorphous
mix of organic compounds.
Properties: It has no definite melting point and no
tendency to crystallize.
Derivation: Resins can be from animal, vegetable,
or synthetic origins.
resinamine. C35H42N209. Alkaloid from certain
species of Rauwolfia.
Properties: White or pale-buff to cream-colored,
crystalline powder; odorless; darkens slowly on ex­
posure to light, more rapidly when in solution. Mp
238C (in vacuo). Partially soluble in organic sol­
vents; insoluble in water.
Use: Medicine (antihypertensive).
resinate. A salt of the resin acids found in rosin.
They are mixtures rather than pure compounds.
Use: See soap (2).
resin, ion-exchange. See ion-exchange resin.
resin, liquid. An organic, polymeric liquid that,
when converted to its final state for use, becomes
solid (ASTM). Example: linseed oil, raw or heat­
bodied (partially polymerized).
See drying oil; resinoid.
renin, natural. I11 VnuiMuhli».rtrriv#H uttmmhmiG