1.

The examination of the present case has been carried out on the set of 13 claims filed with a letter dated 31.05.2007 and the description originally filed. 2. ARTICLE 123(2) EPC The introduction of the terms " " into the wording of independent claim 1 renders the claimes subject-matter in breach with the requirments of Article 123(2) EPC since the cited terms are not supported anywhere in the application documents originally filed. In fact, the purported support place at page , lines of the application documents originally filed referred to by the applicants (see letter dated , page , lines) merely refers to the fact that no raman spectrum could have been obtained instead of indicating that no point near 1549cm-1 and respectively peak at 1400 cm-1 should be present as a technical feature of the claimed product. The wording of independent claim 8 being containing technical features not disclosed in the documetns oringinally filed is in breach with the requirements of support of Article 123(2) EPC and the application in its entirety must be rejected according to the dispositions of Article 97(2) EPC. 3. CLARITY (ARTICLE 84 EPC) The wording of independent claim 1 contains references to desired results to be achieved (see "cabonization" and "sulfonation") without indicating which technical features are essential for the invention in order to obtain the cited desired results to be achieved, bringing the claimed subject-matter in breach with the requirements of Rule 43(2) and respectively with these of Article 84 EPC. The skilled person is confronted with the doubt to know which technical features are encompassed by the claimed subject-matter and which other are excluded therefrom and the wordings of the claims need to contain the required technical features according to the case law of the EPO (see case Law Edition 2009; page 258) them to meet the requirements of clarity of Article 84 EPC. For the reasons above, the present examining division is in a

position not to accept the applicants arguments concerning clarity of the wording of claim 1 (see applicants letter dated , page 1, lines ). Were the applicants not in a position to file a set of claims wherein the process independent claim 1 contains all technical features necessary for obtaining the desired result to be achieved and all technical features essential for the invention to be carried out the applicantion in its entirety is to be rejected according to the dispositions of Article 97(2) since it is in breach with the requirements of Rule 43(2) and Article 84 EPC. 4. NOVELTY(ARTICLE 54 EPC) 4.1 CATALYST CLAIM 8 The objection of lack of novelty of the catalyst claim 8 raised under point 2 of the communication accompanying the search report is maintained since the claim does not contain any differentiating technical feature in view of the catalysts disclosed in D1 and that a product cannot be made novel for the mere fact that it has been obtained by a different processs. The introduced terms being not supported (see point 2. above) cannot be considered as forming part of the claimed subject-matter of independent claim 8. Were the applicants not in a position of either deleting the catalyst claim 8 from the valid set of claims, or providing a catalyst claim wherein all supported technical features contain at least one differentiating technical feature in view of D1 the application in its entirety must be rejected on grounds of lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC) according to the dispositions of Article 97(1) EPC. 4.2 PROCESS CLAIM 1 The claimed process consisting in carbonizing resorcinol derivative at any desired temperature and sulfunating the obtained carbonized product under any operational condition can be considered at least formally novel in view of D1-D4 since none of

them explicitly refers to resorcinol as a source for producing carbonized carbonaceous material, which is thereafter sulfonized. The process of independent claim 1 does meet therefore the conditions of novelty of Article 54 EPC in view of D1-D4. 4.3 PRODUCTION OF ALKYLAROMATICS OF CLAIM 9 AND USE OF CATALYST OF CLAIM 13. Pd contents ranging 10-500 mmoles /kg gold at amounts ranging from 1-200 mmoles /kg and alkali metal from 0.1 to 5 mole /kg on a silica based support as presently claimed in the wording of dependent claim 12 are nowhere disclosed in any of D1 and D2. 2.2.1 In fact, D1 discloses in comparative example 3 a composition containing 10000 ppm Pd (At. W.=106 imply approx. 100 mmol Pd/Kg), 4000 ppm Au (At.W=197 implies approx. 20 mmoles Au/Kg) and 28000 ppm K (At. W. of 39 implies approx. 700 mmoles/Kg =0.7 moles K/Kg) on SiO2 microspherical supports which is prejudicial for the novelty of present claim 12. D1 also discloses the production of vinylacetate from ethylen, acetic acid and oxygen (see paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3, which is prejudicial for the novelty of present claim 13. 2.2.2 D2 discloses (see comparative example 2, example 10, 11) compositions containing Au, Pd,K on pyrogenic silica in the ranges presently in the wordings of claim 12,which are used for producing vinyl acetate from ethylene, acetic acid and oxygen (working example 1). 2.2.3 In the absence of at least one differentiating technical feature in the wording of the independent claims 12 and 13 in view of D1 and D2, the application in its entirety must be rejected on grounds of lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC) according to the dispositions of Article 97(1) EPC. The procedure is hereby stopped at this point since the crucial objection is to be dealt with. The applicants are requested to state

whether or not they are in a position to delete claims 11-13 in order to allow the examining division to further proceed with the analysis of the patentability of the process of preparation of a catalyst of present claims 1-9 or on the contrary prefer the application being rejected on grounds of lack of novelty of claims 11-13 on file. All the objections against the novelty and inventive step raised under points 3.2 and 4., 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 of the second official communication dated 21.11.2006 are maintained for the set of process claims on file (see claims 1-9) and in particular the analysis of inventive step for the whole range of washings ( aqueous liquids of pH of at least 3) is to be thoroughly substantiated according to the problem solution approach of the guidelines C-IV,11.5ff since only water is used in the examples on file. In the absence of at least one differentiating technical feature present in the wording of the independent process claim, which could be considered responsible for the solution of a technical problem in a non obvious way, the application in its entirety must be rejected on grounds of inventive step in view of D1-D4 (Article 56 EPC) according to the dispoistions of Article 97(1) EPB.