Appeal No. 2006-0446
Application No. 09/778,103
Appellants contend that since the ABO catalyst structure of3
Lauder does not include sulfur, “[i]t would not have been obvious
to modify or abandon the ABO crystal structure to form the3
claimed invention” (page 8 of brief, penultimate paragraph).
Appellants maintain that Lauder teaches away from a non-ABO3
crystal structure and that “Lauder cannot be properly applied to
reject a non-ABO ”(page 9 of brief, last paragraph). However,3
the examiner correctly states that appellants’ argument is not
commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the
appealed claims. Appellants’ specification does not define the
claimed complex oxide as a non-ABO structure and, indeed, “the3
illustrative structures of suitable complex oxides include ABO3
compositions” (page 6 of answer, first paragraph, referencing
paragraph [0090] of the instant specification). As explained by
the examiner, “there is nothing in the language of the instant
claims which would preclude the use of an ABO oxide, such as the3
oxide material taught by Lauder.” Id.
We are also not persuaded by appellants’ argument that
“[s]ulfur is not a constituent of the ABO crystal structure3
disclosed in Lauder” (page 10 of brief, first paragraph).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007