Appeal No. 2002-1010 Page 8
Application No. 09/206,210
ordinary skill in this art would have used the steaming and
dealumination processes of Bowes or Kuehl, directed to relatively
low Si/Al atomic ratios, with the process of EP ‘060 when this
reference already has a desired high Si/Al atomic ratio catalyst
of 175 or greater.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of
the reference evidence. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over EP ‘060 in view of Bowes
or Kuehl is reversed.
C. Summary
The provisional rejections of claims 9, 11, 13-14 and 18
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness type double
patenting over (1) claims 1-16 of application no. 09/206,207; (2)
claims 1-16 of application no. 09/206,208; (3) claims 1-26 of
application no. 09/206,216; and (4) claims 1-16 of application
no. 09/206,218 are summarily affirmed.
The rejection of claims 9, 11, 13-14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over EP ‘060 in view of Bowes or Kuehl is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007