Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1 through 6, 9 through 12 and 16 through 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya and Setzer ‘484.
CLAIMS 13-15
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 13
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya, Setzer ‘484 and
Sheller. The relevant disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya and
Setzer ‘484 are discussed above.
The dispositive question here is whether Sheller provides
sufficient suggestion or motivation to employ the particular
material recited in claim 13 to form the claimed monolithic open
cell foam support useful for an autothermal reforming process.
We answer this question in the negative for the reasons well
articulated by the appellant at page 16 of the Brief.
Consequently, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims
13 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya, Setzer ‘484 and
Sheller.
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007