Ex Parte Okumura et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-0446                                                        
          Application No. 09/778,103                                                  

                    directing the exhaust gas from an internal combustion             
               engine through the catalyst for purifying the exhaust gas so           
               as to reduce nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gas.                       
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Lauder                        4,049,583             Sep. 20, 1977           
          Nakatsuji et al.         EP 0 624 393 A1            Nov. 17, 1994           
          (Published European Patent Office Application)                              
          Shigeru et al. (Shigeru)      07-080315             Mar. 28, 1995           
          (Published Japanese Patent application)                                     
               Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a process for             
          purifying exhaust gas.  The process entails directing the exhaust           
          gas through a catalyst comprising iridium, a rare earth metal               
          oxide, sulfur and at least one element selected from the group              
          consisting of calcium, strontium and barium.                                
               Appealed claims 18-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lauder in view of Shigeru.              
               We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments              
          for patentability.  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           
          Section 103 in view of the applied prior art.  Since we fully               
          concur with the examiner’s reasoning and application of the prior           
          art, as well as her cogent disposition of the arguments raised by           

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007