Appeal No. 1999-0058
Application No. 08/701,878
sulfur, said process comprising impregnating the group
VIII metal by means of an aqueous solution of a
halogenated compound thereof, and impregnating metal M
subsequent to calcination and activation of a
precatalyst containing the support and group VIII
metal, in an inert or reducing atmosphere, thereby
producing said catalyst, wherein the metal from group
VIII is platinum.
The examiner relies on the following prior art reference as
evidence of unpatentability:
Bournonville et al. 4,628,130 Dec. 09, 1986
(Bournonville)
Claims 1 through 4, 7 through 14, and 16 through 23 on
appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite. (Examiner's answer, page 3.) Further, claims 1
through 4, 7 through 14, and 16 through 23 on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bournonville. (Id. at pages 4 through 6.) Additionally, claims
1 through 4, 7 through 14, and 16 through 23 stand finally and
provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1
through 3, 5 through 12, and 23 through 44 of commonly owned,
copending application 08/239,062. (Final Office action, page 8;
appeal brief, pages 3 and 7; examiner's answer, pages 2 and 7.)
At page 3 of the appeal brief, the appellants request
separate consideration for appealed claims 21 and 22 based on
"[s]eparate arguments in support of the patentability of these
claims." We therefore limit our discussion as to the propriety
of the examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection to claims 1, 21, and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007