Appeal No. 2002-0218
Application No. 09/332,415
CLAIMS 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7,
9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya,
Setzer and Dicks. Much of the relevant disclosures of Clawson
and Narumiya are discussed above. We find nothing in Setzer and
Dicks which teaches or would have suggested the employment of a
copper and/or zinc catalyst bed subsequent to a noble metal
catalyst bed in the autothermal reformer assembly of the type
suggested by Clawson and Narumiya. Nor has the examiner
explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to employ the above-mentioned catalysts in the claimed
sequence. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
CLAIMS 13 THROUGH 15
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 13-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya, Setzer, Dicks and Sheller.
However, since the examiner does not rely on Sheller to remedy
the above deficiency, we reverse this rejection as well.
CLAIM 18
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007