Appeal No. 1998-1567 4
Application No. 08/636,816
The Rejection under § 103(a)
It is the position of the examiner that although, “the claims on appeal contain
higher pt [sic, Pt] amounts than those in Font Fredie [sic, Freide], given that the same
components are disclosed in the reference the optimization of the metal loadings so as to
obtain the best dehydrogenation results is not believed to define a patentable
distinction.” See Answer, page 5. We disagree.
We find that Font Freide is directed to a process for the production of, “mono-
olefins by the catalytic oxidative dehydrogenation of gaseous paraffinic hydrocarbons
having 2 or more carbon atoms.” See column 1, lines 7-12. We find that the process is
performed in the presence of oxygen containing gas such as oxygen or air. See column
2, lines 10-11. We find that a catalyst capable of supporting combustion beyond the
normal fuel limit of flammability is employed. See column 2, lines 29-30. A range of
support materials for the catalyst includes cordierite, mullite with alumina being the
preferred support. See column 2, lines 29-50. Furthermore, the support material is
preferably in the form of a monolith as required by the claimed subject matter. See
column 2, lines 35-39.
The catalyst of Font Freide however, differs from that of the claimed subject
matter. The catalyst may be prepared by impregnating the support with a solution of a
soluble compound of platinum. See column 2, lines 48-50. The patentee discloses that
by using a simple soaking method it is difficult to achieve greater than 0.15% metal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007