Appeal No. 2001-0175
Application No. 08/857,585
the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 3, and our
consideration of this appeal will focus upon the examiner's
rejections of claim 3.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement
with the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the
following for emphasis only.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Kawabata, the primary reference, discloses,
like appellants, a honeycomb adsorbent structure having a coating
comprising a high silica zeolite and a noble metal-loaded heat
resistant oxide. There is also general agreement that Kawabata
is silent regarding the Si/Al ratio in the zeolite. However, as
properly pointed out by the examiner, Eberly provides the general
teaching that it was known in the art that zeolites having the
presently claimed high silica/alumina ratios, not less than 40,
are suitable for high temperature conversions inasmuch as they
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007