Appeal No. 2000-0344
Application No. 08/718,408
29% together with an almost equal yield of “a large diversity of unidentified
products.” The examiner has pointed to nothing in the prior art that would have
motivated a skilled artisan to make this substitution and we agree with Appellants
that the prior art would have led the skilled artisan away from, rather than toward,
combining the teachings of the cited references.
Thus, we conclude that the cited references do not provide the requisite
motivation to combine and therefore do not support a prima facie case under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Summary
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the references
cited by the examiner provide no motivation to combine Neumann’s ruthenium-
based catalyst with the process of either Pearson or Muzart.
REVERSED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
DEMETRA J. MILLS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ERIC GRIMES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007